Titus Eleweke, South East Editor
AWKA – An Anambra State Magistrate Court sitting in Amawabia Awka South Local Government Area of Anambra State has remanded Vivian Igboanusi, a typist to Chief Godwin Ezeemo, and her sister, Chioma Igboanusi, in a correctional facility over allegations of cyberbullying and defamation against Mrs. Uju Ezeemo, an Onitsha-based legal practitioner.
The defendants, both indigenes of Isseke in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, were arraigned on Wednesday following the circulation of a viral video in which a voice purportedly belonging to one of the suspects allegedly made defamatory statements against Mrs. Ezeemo.
According to reports, the incident stemmed from a visit by Mrs. Ezeemo to a property belonging to her husband at Udoka Estate, where she had accompanied a court bailiff for the service of legal processes on occupants of the premises.
Reports further indicate that Vivian had worked for Chief Godwin Ezeemo for several years as his personal typist, particularly during electioneering periods. It was gathered that Ezeemo provided accommodation for her in the boys’ quarters of the property to ensure her availability whenever needed. Sources also stated that Mrs. Ezeemo was aware of the working arrangement, as both women had worked together for several years.
It was further learned that Chief Ezeemo provided Vivian with a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of her official duties.
The Udoka Estate property is reportedly owned by Chief Ezeemo and had been leased to the Labour Party. The property, along with other assets belonging to the businessman, is said to be managed by his wife, Mrs. Uju Ezeemo.
Sources alleged that Mrs. Ezeemo had directed Vivian to vacate the boys’ quarters completely. During the process, some of Vivian’s personal belongings were reportedly damaged. The typist allegedly became enraged, verbally attacked Mrs. Ezeemo, and later posted content relating to the incident on Facebook, where it quickly gained traction online.
During the court proceedings, the prosecuting counsel, J.O. Obochi, alleged that Vivian Igboanusi, an employee of Chief Godwin Ezeemo, and her sister, Chioma, conspired on June 3, 2026, to commit acts of assault and cyberbullying.
Obochi told the court that the defendants recorded and circulated defamatory content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and other social media platforms with the intention of damaging the complainant’s reputation, an offence punishable under the law.
He further alleged that while Mrs. Ezeemo was merely at the residence to assist a court bailiff in identifying the property for service of legal processes, the suspects assaulted her, held her against her will, seized her mobile phone, and used their own devices to record videos of the incident.
Defence Seeks Bail
Counsel to the defendants, P.C. Onuya, applied for bail pursuant to Section 101 of the Anambra State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2026.
He argued that the offences were bailable and urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the defendants, emphasizing that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man.
Court Orders Remand
In her ruling, the presiding magistrate, Nonyelum Anyaegbunam, highlighted the constitutional safeguards governing remand proceedings and noted that while the issue of bail could be considered, the defendants would remain in custody pending further proceedings.
The matter was adjourned to July 28, 2026, for further hearing.
Bail was not granted. A subsequent oral application by the defence counsel seeking the release of Chioma Igboanusi on the grounds that she was not the principal offender was struck out by the court.
Complainant Narrates Ordeal
Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, Mrs. Uju Ezeemo recounted her version of the events.
According to her, she had only gone to the property to assist a court bailiff in locating the building for the service of court documents.
“It was early last week. A bailiff was assigned court processes to serve the occupants of my husband’s building in Udoka Estate. He could not locate the property and requested that I guide him there since I manage my husband’s properties.
“The building had been rented to the Labour Party, but because they were in arrears, I initiated legal proceedings for the service of court processes. At the bailiff’s request, I agreed to accompany him for directions.
However, I arrived at the property before he did.
“On getting there, I met a woman operating a small kiosk at the gate. When I questioned her presence, she claimed she had permission from the Labour Party. I immediately contacted the party chairman, who denied authorising her occupation of the space.
“While I was speaking on the phone with the bailiff, the woman entered a security post and made a call. Shortly afterwards, a suspended member of my husband’s staff arrived in a tricycle and forcefully seized my mobile phone, repeatedly smashing it on the ground.
“When she realised that I would not retaliate, she began hitting me with objects while recording videos and making defamatory statements against me. After holding my phone for approximately four hours, she returned it at about 6 p.m.
“I immediately contacted the police, but by the time officers arrived, the suspects had fled. I later discovered that the videos had already been uploaded online. Efforts to have them removed were unsuccessful because they had gone viral before the suspects were arrested.”
Responding to allegations in the viral video that the suspect was owed salaries, Mrs. Ezeemo maintained that neither her husband nor his companies owed Vivian any outstanding wages.
She stated that Vivian had been suspended prior to the incident and insisted that all salary payments were made through verifiable bank transfers.
“The information available to me is that throughout her employment, she was paid regularly until she was suspended over irregularities in the management of the company’s affairs.
“Following her suspension, she took possession of the company’s official vehicle and other company property, including a microwave, a gas cooker, kitchen utensils, and chairs. Some of these items were reportedly recovered during a search of her residence.
“Since she started working for us, she occupied three rooms in the boys’ quarters. No one harassed or pursued her. Her actions were motivated by malice and jealousy.
“We paid her regularly and can substantiate every payment through bank records. If she genuinely believed she was being owed salaries, she had every opportunity to seek legal redress long before now.”
In the now-viral video, Vivian claimed that she had worked for Chief Godwin Ezeemo since 2013 and was owed outstanding salaries.
She further alleged that Mrs. Uju Ikena- Ezeemo was not Chief Ezeemo’s lawful wife but his girlfriend and accused her of destroying her property because she demanded payment of her entitlements.
“I worked for Ezeemo for over 12 years, since 2013, he did not pay me all” she alleged. Vivian also claimed that Mrs. Ezeemo had displaced Chief Ezeemo’s first wife, Mrs. Nneka Ezeemo.
According to her:
“Uju Ikena chased away Ezeemo’s wife, Nneka Ezeemo, and abandoned her own husband Mr white, who sells food in onitsha, to impose herself on Chief Ezeemo.”
“At the time she was working with Ezeemo, long before she began claiming to be Mrs. Ezeemo, her husband, Mr. White, was a food vendor in Onitsha.
“The acclaimed Uju Ezeemo wife was Ezeemo’s girlfriend, not his wife. She was already married when she joined them at Ezeemo’s office.
“Ezeemo did not pay me my rightful entitlements before suspending me. He neither dismissed nor terminated my appointment.
“I continued carrying out my duties. However, Uju abandoned her responsibilities and chose to interfere in matters that did not concern her.”
Independent findings indicate that Mrs. Nneka Ezeemo reportedly resides in London and has three children for Ezeemo and they are living abroad.
Police React
Sources disclosed that the suspects were detained for four days before being formally charged in court.
When contacted, the Anambra State Commissioner of Police, CP Ikioye Orutugu, said he did not have the full details of the matter but was aware that a legal practitioner had allegedly been defamed.
According to him, he had advised the parties to explore an amicable resolution while investigations continue.
“I do not yet have the full details of the matter. However, I am aware that a barrister was allegedly defamed. I advised the parties to consider settling the dispute, while investigations are still ongoing,” he said.
