Imprisoned mandate: Inside ‘controversial’ conviction of Enugu Assembly winner

Once regarded as the last hope of the common man, the judiciary is facing growing public distrust amid allegations of corruption, delayed justice, conflicting judgments, and political interference, raising serious concerns about the integrity and independence of the nation’s courts. CHIJIOKE IREMEKA examines the alleged political conviction of Barrister Emeka Ngene and others Barrister Emeka Ngene’s incarceration echoes a warning about the dangers of politics infiltrating the judiciary, as once expressed by former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami. He had warned that while the judiciary is meant to remain the hope of the common man, once politicians penetrate the courts, the institution risks becoming the “hope of politicians” instead. His position reflects a broader and enduring concern that judicial independence becomes compromised when partisan interests or corruption influence legal outcomes, as was alleged in the case involving Ngene and other alleged victims of judicial misfires. In 2024, Ngene was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment by a magistrate’s court sitting in Enugu over allegations of theft and conspiracy involving community funds, at a time when he was on the verge of winning the Enugu South Urban 1 State Constituency seat in the House of Assembly and participating in all reruns ordered by the tribunal. Elected on the platform of the Labour Party, he was eventually declared the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission while still in prison, under circumstances that raised troubling questions about justice and cast a shadow over the long-held belief that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man. In the words of former Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Chukwudifu Oputa, “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.” Though the dictum was originally laid down by the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart, in Rex v. Sussex, the principle became a cornerstone of Oputa’s judicial philosophy. The late jurist, widely celebrated as the “Socrates of the Supreme Court,” built a lasting legacy around fairness, transparency, and the humanity of the law. Explaining what justice means to the accused, the complainant, and society at large, Oputa famously stated, “Justice is not a one-way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant only. Justice is not even a two-way traffic. It is really a three-way traffic.” He explained that justice for the accused requires that the individual receive a fair hearing and be neither railroaded nor unduly punished, as alleg