Coalition Defends Edo Chief Judge, Rejects Misconduct Allegations and Political Interference Claims

The Coalition for Justice Reform has come out in support of the Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Daniel Okungbowa, dismissing allegations surrounding judicial appointments and claims of financial misconduct as baseless, misleading, and politically motivated.

In a statement issued in Abuja on June 10, 2026, the coalition rejected reports alleging that the Chief Judge had improperly influenced judicial processes in the state. The group maintained that Justice Okungbowa's actions have been guided solely by constitutional provisions and established judicial procedures.

According to the coalition, criticisms directed at the Chief Judge stem from his insistence on due process in matters relating to appointments within the Edo State judiciary. It argued that portraying compliance with legal procedures as bias represents a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

The group explained that the ongoing process to reconstitute the Edo State Customary Court of Appeal must comply with constitutional requirements and judicial regulations. Following the re-enactment of the law establishing the court, it said all serving High Court judges in the state are eligible for consideration for appointment as President of the Customary Court of Appeal.

The coalition noted that such appointments must pass through the Judicial Service Commission and the National Judicial Council before any final approval by the state governor.

“The Chief Judge is not interfering in the process; he is simply ensuring that due process is followed,” the statement said, warning that any attempt to bypass established procedures could violate the guidelines of the National Judicial Council.

The group also expressed concern over reports detailing discussions allegedly held during a meeting of judges of the Edo State High Court. It described the circulation of such information on social media as unusual and questioned the motives behind the disclosures.

According to the coalition, political interests opposed to the strict application of due process may be behind the growing controversy surrounding judicial appointments in the state.

Beyond the appointment dispute, the group addressed allegations that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is investigating Justice Okungbowa over claims that ?6 billion allocated to the Edo State Judiciary was diverted.

The allegations, widely circulated online, claim that funds intended for judicial projects were misappropriated and that investigators are examining the Chief Judge’s financial activities.

However, the coalition pointed to budget records that appear to contradict the claims. According to findings cited by the group, the approved 2026 budget for the Edo State Judiciary is approximately ?300 million, significantly lower than the ?6 billion figure referenced in the allegations.

The coalition further explained that while the judiciary reportedly proposed a budget of about ?6 billion for 2026, the amount was substantially reduced during the legislative appropriation process, leaving the judiciary with far less funding than initially requested.

Sources familiar with the matter reportedly indicated that Justice Okungbowa raised concerns about the reduction and its impact on court operations, after which assurances were given that additional funding could be considered through a supplementary budget.

Supporters of the Chief Judge argue that a proposed budget should not be confused with funds that have been approved, released, or placed under the control of an institution. They contend that allegations of diversion remain unsupported unless evidence shows that the funds in question were actually disbursed.

While no official findings have been released by the EFCC regarding the matter, the controversy has generated debate within legal circles. Some senior lawyers have cautioned against unverified allegations that could damage public trust in the judiciary, while others maintain that all claims involving public officials should be thoroughly investigated.

Legal observers note that judicial independence and accountability can coexist, emphasizing that allegations of misconduct should be determined through credible investigations rather than speculation or political pressure.

As discussions continue, the Coalition for Justice Reform insists that the allegations against Justice Okungbowa contain significant inconsistencies and should not be accepted without verifiable evidence. The group maintains that the broader issues at stake include respect for due process, judicial independence, and the protection of the judiciary from undue political influence.