Procedural Delay Continues as Respondents Seek Out-of-Court Settlement

By Dr. Robert Ngwu
Abuja, April 20, 2026

INTRODUCTION

Proceedings in the suit instituted by Chief Uche Geoffrey Nnaji against the University of Nigeria, including the Vice Chancellor and the former Acting Vice Chancellor in their personal capacities and others listed as 3rd to 7th Respondents, resumed as scheduled before the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, presided over by Honourable Justice H. J. Yilwa.

The sitting followed the earlier adjournment of February 26, 2026 and provided further clarity on the state of proceedings, particularly regarding ongoing settlement discussions and unresolved procedural deficiencies on the part of the Respondents.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT

When the matter was called and appearances duly announced:

• The Applicant was represented by counsel led by Opeyemi Muritala, Esq., alongside other members of the legal team from the Chambers of Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, and Professor Sebastine Hon, SAN.
• Counsel to the 3rd to 7th Respondents, led in court by Mr. Chidubem Ugwunweze, Esq., from the Chambers of Chief Chris Uche, SAN, appeared with other counsel.
• Two other counsel respectively appeared for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, namely the Minister of Education and the National Universities Commission.

APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT

Upon the matter being called, counsel to the Applicant informed the Court that:

• He had been briefed by his principal that settlement discussions were ongoing
• He sought an adjournment to allow parties explore settlement options

POSITION OF THE RESPONDENTS

In response:

• Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents stated that they were not yet aware of any settlement discussions but would confirm from their clients. However, they neither opposed the application for adjournment nor settlement discussions.
• Counsel to the 3rd to 7th Respondents confirmed before the Court that:
  • His principal, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, had consulted with Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN earlier that morning on the possibility of settlement
  • Settlement discussions were indeed ongoing
  • They did not oppose the adjournment

ATTEMPT TO REGULARISE DEFECTIVE PROCESSES

Notwithstanding the above developments:

• Counsel to the 3rd to 7th Respondents applied to regularise processes filed out of time, acknowledging that such processes were not yet competent before the Court.
• The Honourable Court declined this application, stating that such issues would only be considered if settlement efforts fail.

This development further underscores continuing procedural challenges associated with the Respondents’ filings, consistent with observations made at the previous sitting.

COURT RULING

With the consent of all parties:

• The Honourable Court adjourned the matter to July 8, 2026 for report of settlement or hearing, as the case may be.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

It has become necessary to clarify certain misrepresentations circulating in some quarters regarding today’s proceedings.

Who Initiated Settlement

• Settlement discussions were initiated from the Respondents’ side, as expressly admitted by their counsel in open court.
• Counsel to the Applicant merely acknowledged the existence of such discussions and requested adjournment.

Any narrative suggesting that the Applicant sought settlement is therefore inaccurate and misleading.

CLARIFICATION OF THE LEGAL POSITION

It is important to restate clearly:

• Chief Uche Geoffrey Nnaji is the Applicant in this matter
• He is not a Respondent

Accordingly:

• The Applicant, having instituted the action, retains the right to abandon, withdraw, or continue the suit in accordance with the law
• The present context reflects a situation where the Respondents, against whom substantive reliefs are sought, have indicated willingness to explore settlement

The suit seeks:

• To restrain the 3rd to 7th Respondents from any interference with the Applicant’s academic records at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka
• To compel the release of his complete academic records in order to provide final clarity regarding his academic and graduation status dating back over four decades

This remains a matter of records, transparency, and institutional integrity.

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND PUBLIC CONCERN

The University of Nigeria, Nsukka has historically stood as a premier academic institution since its founding in 1962 under the leadership of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and other distinguished national figures.

Recent developments within the University have generated public discourse around governance, administrative decisions, and institutional direction, particularly concerning current leadership. Stakeholders have raised concerns regarding administrative consistency, accountability, and broader institutional performance.

In this context, the present litigation underscores the necessity of preserving institutional credibility, transparency, and adherence to due process, consistent with the founding ideals of academic independence and merit.

VOLUNTARY STEP ASIDE FROM OFFICE

It is also noteworthy that Chief Uche Geoffrey Nnaji voluntarily stepped aside from ministerial office in order to pursue legal clarity without the constraints of public office.

Such a decision underscores:

• His commitment to due process
• His respect for institutional integrity
• His determination to preserve his name and legacy for his family and future generations

Similarly, his earlier decision in 1999, as Senator Elect representing Enugu East Senatorial Zone, to voluntarily step aside in favour of Chief Jim Nwobodo reflects a long standing commitment to collective leadership and principled public conduct.

THE BROADER STAKES

Though today’s sitting focused largely on procedural developments and settlement discussions, it reinforces a broader principle.

In matters of law, procedure often reveals posture.

The proceedings highlight two parallel realities:

• Ongoing settlement overtures initiated by the Respondents
• Persistent procedural deficiencies and delays in their filings

At the same time, the emergence of misleading public narratives contradicting positions taken in open court raises concerns about attempts to shape perception outside the judicial process.

Supporters and well wishers are therefore urged to remain calm and guided by verified facts.

The matter continues to progress within the framework of due process.

CONCLUSION

The events of today reaffirm a simple truth.

Facts placed before a court of law carry greater weight than narratives circulated outside it.

Justice proceeds not by speculation, but by order, discipline, and time.

In the end, clarity remains the ultimate objective.