By Chinedu Agu
This troubling pattern emerging from the Imo State Judiciary is no longer enough to call this an isolated judicial overreach. It is rather beginning to look like a remand craze. And unless the heads of the Judiciary act urgently, the courtroom may gradually lose its character as a sanctuary of justice and begin to wear the frightening face of a prison reception room.
Two days ago, I wrote on the disturbing incident where two court clerks were allegedly sent to prison over an administrative query. I warned that when a query becomes a prison warrant, judicial authority has crossed from discipline into danger. I had hoped that the incident would be treated as an embarrassing exception. Sadly, another report has emerged yesterday from a Customary Court sitting at Nkwo Ihitte, Ihitte Uboma, Imo State, and the facts, if correct, are even more frightening.
In a matter before the Customary Court sometime in February 2026, one Emeka Agu, a legal practitioner, appeared for alleged contemnors in a contempt proceeding. While he was conducting the matter, counsel on the other side reportedly interjected. Emeka Agu, apparently displeased by the interruption, turned to the opposing counsel and said something that the court did not find comfortable with.
The court considered the statement reprehensible and asked counsel to apologise. Counsel reportedly hesitated and asked, “Apologise to who?” The Chairman of the Customary Court took this as an affront to the dignity of the court, abruptly rose in anger, and directed counsel in all other matters to take dates.
If the Chairman felt offended, there were lawful, measured and dignified ways to address the incident. But what followed suggests something more troubling.
After that sitting, the counsel reportedly wrote a petition against the Chairman of the Customary Court to the President of the Customary Court of Appeal, asking that the matter be transferred. That petition, in my view, appears to be the real wound that refused to heal.
On resumption of court yesterday, Thursday, 14 May 2026, the Chairman reportedly commenced contempt proceedings against Emeka Agu of counsel. The court then pronounced a punishment of fourteen days’ imprisonment or, in the alternative, payment of fifty thousand naira.
Even if one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the court had jurisdiction to punish for contempt, the next question is, if the punishment gave an option of fine, why was the lawyer not allowed to pay the fine?
According to the report, counsel rose to approach the registry to make the payment of the fifty thousand naira. But he was allegedly restrained by the registrar of the court with the help of the opposing counsel. He was then bundled and thrown into the toilet of the court. In the process, his clothes were torn, his temple was bruised and bloodied, and his lawyer’s shirt became stained with blood.
This is neither justice, discipline, contempt procedure, nor preservation of the dignity of the court. It is rather disgraceful.
The opposing counsel reportedly dashed out and invited policemen from Isinweke Police Station. The policemen came to the court and carried counsel in the vehicle of the opposing counsel. On getting to the police station, the registrar and the opposing counsel allegedly informed the police that counsel had been sentenced to fourteen days in prison.
The police handcuffed him and took him to Owerri Prison. While the prison admission protocols were ongoing, the President of the Customary Court of Appeal reportedly got information about the incident and intervened. That timely intervention saved counsel from being fully admitted into prison custody.
The intervention of the President of the Customary Court of Appeal deserves commendation. But it does not erase the deeper question. How did a lawyer who had an option of fine find himself handcuffed, bloodied, and almost admitted into prison?
A prison is not a dumping ground for judicial irritation. A remand warrant is not a weapon for bruised ego.
A courtroom is not a private palace where the presiding officer converts displeasure into incarceration.
Was this really about contempt, or was it retaliation dressed in judicial robes?
Contempt powers exist to protect the administration of justice. They do not exist to settle scores. They do not exist to punish counsel for writing petitions. They do not exist to frighten lawyers who complain about judicial conduct. They do not exist to turn a court registrar and opposing counsel into enforcers of humiliation.
Where a lawyer is given an option of fine and he rises to pay that fine, restraining him, manhandling him, and presenting him to the police as a prisoner is a dangerous descent into lawlessness.
The irony is painful. The court that is supposed to protect citizens from unlawful force became, by this account, the theatre of force. The lawyer who came to argue law left with torn clothes, a bruised temple, bloodied face, handcuffs, police escort and prison admission forms.
If lawyers can be treated this way inside or around the court, what hope does the ordinary litigant have?
The Judiciary must understand that the dignity of the court is not preserved by terror. It is preserved by fairness. It is not preserved by shouting down counsel. It is not preserved by threatening prison at every slight irritation. It is not preserved by converting disagreement into contempt and contempt into imprisonment.
A judicial officer who cannot distinguish between an insult, an error of advocacy, a genuine contempt, and a personal slight is dangerous to liberty.
No one is saying lawyers are above the law. A lawyer who misbehaves in court may be corrected. A lawyer who truly commits contempt may be dealt with according to law. But the process must be lawful, dignified and proportionate. The court must not become complainant, prosecutor, judge, jailer and executioner in its own cause. This is precisely why the current trend must be condemned.
First, a court clerk was reportedly pushed toward prison over a query. Now, a lawyer is reportedly nearly admitted into prison after a courtroom disagreement, a petition for transfer, and a contempt proceeding that ended with a fine option he was allegedly prevented from paying.
If this is not checked, tomorrow a litigant may be remanded for frowning. A witness may be remanded for speaking slowly. A journalist may be remanded for reporting proceedings. A court staff may be remanded for administrative disagreement. The remand power will become a whip in the hands of anger. That is judicial rascality.
The Chief Judge of Imo State, the President of the Customary Court of Appeal, the Judicial Service Commission, the Nigerian Bar Association, and all relevant authorities must urgently investigate this incident.
The registrar’s alleged role must be examined. The opposing counsel’s alleged role must be examined. The Chairman’s exercise of contempt power must be examined. The movement of a bloodied lawyer from court to police station and then to prison must be explained.
This is an institutional alarm.
If a lawyer can be bloodied and almost pushed into prison custody while trying to pay a fine imposed by a court, then the Bar must rise beyond press statements and demand accountability. The President of the Customary Court of Appeal has already shown that swift intervention is possible. But intervention after the prison gate has opened is not enough. There must be prevention. There must be correction. There must be consequences.
Judicial authority is powerful, but it is not absolute. The robe does not confer ownership of citizens’ liberty. The gavel is not a hammer for personal vengeance. The power to punish for contempt is not a licence to humiliate counsel. The prison is not an annex of the courtroom.
Imo State can not afford a Judiciary where liberty depends on the mood of a presiding officer. Imo State can not afford a justice system where lawyers enter court with files and leave with bloodstained shirts.
Imo State can not afford a Bench where petitions are answered with prison threats.
This remand craze in Imo Judiciary must stop.
Chinedu Agu is a Solicitor | Notary Public | Past Secretary of NBA Owerri | Activist | FPD
[email protected]
+2348032568512
15 May 2026
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
