The media report published today under the headline “UNN, NYSC disowned ex-minister Nnaji’s certificates, witness tells court” does not give readers a complete or balanced account of what transpired before the Federal High Court. Its headline presents the prosecution’s allegations as though they were established facts, even though the trial is ongoing and no judgment has been delivered.
Chief Uche Geoffrey Nnaji was represented by Wole Olanipekun, SAN; Bode Olanipekun, SAN; Opeyemi Adekoya; Raymond Nkannebe; Ifeanyi Nwabueze; and Oluwashola Adeshina. The prosecution was represented by J.A. Mumuni, SAN.
The prosecution presented its first witness. The witness was cross-examined by the defence, and the case was adjourned to November 5 for continuation of the trial.
The report itself records that the witness did not visit UNN during the investigation, could not identify the faculty from which Chief Nnaji graduated, and could not recall the surname of a registrar he said he interviewed. During cross-examination, defence counsel also drew the witness’s attention to a later letter rescinding the university’s earlier withdrawal of admission. These are material details that readers should consider alongside the prosecution’s claims.
The court admitted documents tendered by the prosecution, while ruling that objections to their admissibility could be considered at the final address. Their admission is part of the trial process; it is not a finding that the allegations have been proved. The evidence must be tested under the fire of cross examination to ascertain it’s truthfulness and validity, the defence must have its opportunity to defend every single allegation against it. The court then will give its judgment based on proven facts and law.
The authors of the earlier report appear to have disregarded that the publication of a false or materially misleading account of proceedings in a matter sub judice may constitute contempt of court, prejudice the administration of justice, and cast unwarranted aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary.
The omissions and emphasis in the report raise a legitimate question about whether it reflects the proceedings in their full context. If the reporter was present, the account still leaves out important parts of the cross-examination and risks giving the public a misleading impression. Court reporting should inform the public accurately and fairly, not turn allegations into conclusions.
Chief Nnaji has confidence in the Nigerian judiciary and in the court’s ability to assess the evidence impartially. The courts remain a vital institution for resolving disputes according to law and evidence. He will continue to defend himself through the proper process, confident that the truth will prevail.
The timing of a one-sided account during a politically charged campaign season is bound to invite questions. Those reporting on the case should resist any attempt—by whoever may be behind it—to try the matter in the media instead of allowing the judicial process to run its course. The proceedings belong before the court, where evidence can be examined and challenged.
To Chief Nnaji’s supporters, well-wishers, and the people of Enugu State: remain calm and let the trial proceed. Chief Nnaji’s vision for Enugu is to Recover, Rebuild and Industrialise the state.
He will work to recover Enugu’s economy and stand with people whose shops were demolished without adequate compensation and whose personal or ancestral lands were taken by force. He will rebuild the economy, strengthen security, and support the restoration of demolished shops and schools. He will pursue new industries that create jobs and opportunities for young people, helping address the outward migration driven by the lack of opportunities at home.
The truth will be tested in court. Enugu’s future will be decided by its people.
Signed;
Nwakaibie Campaign Team
