A dramatic twist has ensued in the alleged false declaration and defamation filed by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (OAGF) against a member of the House of Representatives, Hon Amobi Godwin Ogah, as tension flared up between the Abia federal lawmaker and his legal team during proceedings before the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja.
When the matter came up before Justice Halilu Yusuf on Tuesday, Ogah, who represents the Isuikwuato/Umunneochi Federal Constituency, rejected the appearance of Bar V.C. Ifacho from Chambers of former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr Kanu Agabi (SAN).
The development added a dramatic dimension to a case that has already attracted considerable attention because of the allegations contained in the criminal charge of false declaration and defamation against the federal lawmaker and his previous remand in Kuje Prison, following a court order.
During the courtroom episode, Ogah faulted the legal representation being provided by Agabi to represent him in the case on the grounds that the case is a serious matter
Ogah also cited financial resources he had committed to his legal representation and expressed dissatisfaction that a junior lawyer appeared in court on behalf of the ex-AGF to handle sensitive matter.
The federal lawmaker further boasted about his level of influence which he claimed to enjoy within the Nigerian judicial and political establishment.
The latest development comes against the backdrop of Charge No. CR/650/2024, in which the Federal Government accused the lawmaker of offences relating to alleged false declaration, defamation, perjury and injurious falsehood involving former Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Nkeiruka Chidubem Onyejeocha.
The prosecution’s case arose from statements allegedly contained in an affidavit sworn to by Ogah in May 2023.
According to the charge, one of the allegations attributed to Ogah was that Onyejeocha had told supporters that she had “bought over” members of an election tribunal, including Justice Halima Saleeman.
The prosecution contends that the declaration was false, defamatory and constituted an offence under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.
Another count concerns an allegation that Onyejeocha was responsible for the removal of a former chairman of the election petitions panel and that the change was intended to pave the way for Justice Halima Saleeman, whom the lawmaker allegedly claimed she knew personally.
But the prosecution maintains that the statement was false and defamatory.
Count five specifically alleges that Ogah made a false declaration against Onyejeocha with the intention of damaging her reputation.
The charge states that the alleged conduct occurred within the jurisdiction of the FCT High Court in Abuja and amounted to an offence contrary to Section 393 of the Penal Code.
But Ogah has denied wrongdoing in the matter, while the allegations remain subject to determination by the court.
The case had earlier taken a dramatic turn in June 2026 when the federal lawmaker was arrested pursuant to a court order and subsequently remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre.
Justice Yusuf Halilu had ordered his detention, with the matter initially adjourned for further proceedings.
A committal order dated June 24, 2026, identified the case as Charge No. CR/650/2024 and directed that the lawmaker remain in custody pending the next date of proceedings.
The prosecution’s allegations stem from the 2023 political contest involving Onyejeocha and the subsequent legal battles surrounding the election.
The case has also generated competing legal actions.
In a separate proceeding before the Federal High Court in Abuja in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CV/1308/2025, Justice M G Umar granted orders that enabled Ogah to pursue his request for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to investigate allegations concerning the 2023 election.
The Federal High Court proceeding is separate from the criminal case currently before the FCT High Court.
The competing proceedings have placed the political dispute between the parties within a wider web of litigation, with allegations and counter-allegations being tested through different judicial processes.
The case has also attracted public commentary, including criticism from some civil society voices over the circumstances surrounding the prosecution.
However, such claims remain matters of public argument and do not constitute findings of the court.
For now, the criminal proceedings remain before Justice Yusuf Halilu while the court is expected to continue the consideration of the charge against the lawmaker.
Justice Halilu Yusuf has been adjourned the case till October 6, 2026 for further hearing of the matter.
