By TITUS ELEWEKE, Editor, South East
AWKA, Anambra – The Chief Magistrate’s Court 4, sitting at Amawbia in Awka South Local Government Area of Anambra State, has ordered the Nigeria Police Force o make available all relevant documents required by Comrade Osita Obi to enable him adequately defend himself in a defamation case.
The order was made by the presiding Chief Magistrate, Her Worship, Esther Chukwu, on Monday when the matter in Charge No. AWK/C/2025, between the Commissioner of Police, Anambra State, and Osita Obi, came up for hearing.
The charge arose from allegations of defamation said to have been made against the Catholic Archdiocese of Awka, Anambra State by Obi.
The charge reads in part:“That you, Osita Obi, ‘m’, of Ezewuzie Street, Ifite, Awka, on or about the 15th day of August 2025, at Awka within the Awka Magisterial District, did knowingly and intentionally publish defamatory statements through your Facebook page known as ‘OSITA OBI’ and another Facebook page known as ‘IGBO HISTORY’, wherein you alleged that the Catholic Diocese of Awka was no better than Boko Haram and bandits, and that it was better to deal with Lucifer than to deal with the said Church.The said statements, which you knew or had reason to believe to be false, were calculated to injure the reputation of Rev. Fr. Chudy P. S. Aguinam and members of the Catholic Diocese of Awka, thereby exposing them to hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public.You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 324(a) and punishable under Section 325 of the Criminal Code, Cap 36, Vol. II, Revised Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria, 1991.”
When the case was called, the defendant, Osita Obi, was present in court alongside his legal team.
The prosecution was represented by Inspector Edith Okonkwo, who informed the court that the lead police prosecutor, Mr. A. G. Obi, had earlier contacted her to report that he was ill and therefore unable to attend court.
She consequently applied for an adjournment to enable the prosecution properly take up the matter at the next sitting.
Counsel to the defendant, Mr. Martin Obi, did not oppose the application for adjournment. However, he urged the court to compel the police to provide his client with all relevant documents in their possession to enable him effectively prepare his defence.
In support of his application, defence counsel relied on Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which guarantees an accused person the right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.
He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Okoye v. Commissioner of Police, arguing that access to relevant prosecution documents is fundamental to the right to fair hearing.
He informed the court that several written requests had been made to the police for the release of the required documents, but that the police had failed or refused to comply.
Responding, Inspector Edith Okonkwo argued that the defendant could not dictate to the police the documents to be released.
According to her, the prosecution is only obligated to disclose documents it intends to rely upon during the trial, and not every document requested by the defence. She maintained that documents not relevant to the prosecution’s case need not be disclosed.
After hearing arguments from both parties, the presiding Chief Magistrate ruled in favour of the defendant. Her Worship, Esther Chukwu, ordered the police to make available all documents requested by the defendant which are necessary for the preparation of his defence.
The Magistrate held that failure to disclose such material documents could undermine the integrity of the trial and amount to a denial of fair hearing. She emphasized that access to the requested documents is essential to ensure that the defendant is afforded a fair and proper trial as guaranteed by law.
The case was thereafter adjourned to 16 February 2026 for the commencement of hearing.
Speaking to journalists shortly after the court session, defence counsel, Mr. Martin Obi, disclosed that he had formally itemised several documents required for the defence of the case. He noted that without access to those documents, the trial could not proceed fairly.
He stressed that refusal to release the requested documents would amount to a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to fair hearing.
