News from Ogugu, From Olamaboro Local Government Area of Kogi State
Ogugu Community Urged Not to Be Misled as Concerned Stakeholders Clarify Facts Surrounding Disputed Staff of Office Presentation
Dear Sons and Daughters of Ogugu,
Our attention has been drawn to the statement issued by the so-called “Onu Ochogwu Staff of Office Secretariat” on 1st June, 2026, concerning the aborted presentation of the Staff of Office to Barr. Isaiah Siaka Idoko-Akoh. While every citizen is entitled to express an opinion, no individual or group has the right to distort facts that are already the subject of judicial proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction.
In the interest of truth, justice, and public enlightenment, it has become necessary to set the record straight and present the true position of events to the people of Ogugu and the general public.
RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH ONE
The statement alleges that legal proceedings were instituted shortly before the proposed event, specifically claiming that the matter was brought before the court “two days to the event.” This assertion is false, misleading, and intended to create a wrong impression.
The matter in question is Suit No. IDHC/21/2024: Mr. ************ v. Mr. Isaiah Siaka Idoko-Akoh & 7 Others, which has been pending before the High Court of Kogi State for a considerable period.
More significantly, on 29th May, 2025, the court granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining all parties from taking further steps concerning the disputed stool pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Consequently, any attempt to suggest that litigation suddenly emerged days before the ceremony is a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. The parties involved have been fully aware of both the pending litigation and the subsisting court order for well over a year.
RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH TWO
The statement further claims that the formal presentation of the Staff of Office was postponed out of respect for the judicial process and the rule of law.
This claim is difficult to reconcile with the conduct of Barr. Isaiah Siaka Idoko-Akoh and his supporters.
If there was genuine respect for the rule of law, why were invitation cards printed, circulated, and distributed for a ceremony intended to publicly present him as the Ochogwu of Ogugu despite the existence of a valid and subsisting court order?
If there was genuine respect for the authority of the court, why was extensive publicity undertaken and large-scale mobilization carried out for an event directly connected to a matter that remains the subject of active litigation?
More importantly, Barr. Isaiah Siaka Idoko-Akoh personally approached the court seeking to set aside the restraining order. Having voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court and sought relief from that same court, what prevented him from awaiting the court’s determination of his application before continuing to hold himself out as Ochogwu of Ogugu?
The principle is simple: a litigant who seeks the protection and intervention of the court must equally respect the authority of that court and await its decision. One cannot seek justice from the court while simultaneously acting as though its orders no longer exist.
RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH THREE
The organizers now seek to characterize the gathering as merely a “First Anniversary Celebration.”
This explanation raises more questions than it answers.
The people of Ogugu are aware that the event was publicly announced, promoted, and widely perceived as a Staff of Office Presentation and coronation-related ceremony. The sudden attempt to redefine the event after legal objections were raised does not alter its original purpose or public perception.
More importantly, celebrating a purported one-year reign while the legitimacy of that reign remains the subject of ongoing litigation risks creating the false impression that the dispute has already been resolved.
The reality remains that the court has not yet determined the substantive issues before it.
No amount of rebranding or semantic adjustment can change the fact that the matter remains actively before the court.
RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH FOUR
The statement assures the public that the matter remains before the court and will be pursued through lawful channels.
On this point, we are in complete agreement.
That is precisely why all parties should allow the judiciary to perform its constitutional responsibility without actions capable of prejudicing the proceedings or creating a fait accompli.
Indeed, prior to the proposed event, a formal petition dated 26th May, 2026 was submitted to the Honourable Attorney-General of Kogi State, drawing attention to the subsisting court order and warning against any presentation of the Staff of Office pending the determination of the suit.
Copies of the petition were also forwarded to the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, the Attah Igala, and the Ejeh of Olamaboro.
Accordingly, the legal concerns surrounding the event were neither hidden nor unexpected. All relevant authorities were duly informed in advance.
RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH FIVE
The statement concludes by thanking the people for their support and calling for unity within the community.
We wholeheartedly support peace, unity, and development in Ogugu.
However, genuine unity cannot be built on actions that disregard lawful court processes. The greatest contribution anyone can make to the peace and stability of Ogugu at this critical moment is to encourage respect for the rule of law and obedience to judicial authority.
The people of Ogugu are enlightened, law-abiding, and peace-loving. They deserve nothing less than the truth.
For this reason, it is important to address another issue that has generated widespread public interest.
Many members of the public have wondered why the Executive Governor of Kogi State, the Attah Igala, the Ejeh of Olamaboro, and several highly respected traditional rulers did not attend the proposed event.
The answer is neither far-fetched nor difficult to understand.
These institutions are undoubtedly aware of the pending litigation and the legal implications associated with a chieftaincy dispute that remains unresolved before the court. Their absence underscores the importance of caution, restraint, and adherence to due process until the judiciary reaches a final determination.
THE REAL ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The issue before the court is not whether one faction can mobilize supporters, print invitation cards, organize celebrations, or attract public attention.
The real issue is whether due process was followed and whether the actions complained of can withstand judicial scrutiny under the law.
Until the court delivers its judgment in Suit No. IDHC/21/2024, all parties should refrain from conduct capable of undermining the authority of the court or creating the impression that the outcome has already been predetermined.
The people of Ogugu must not be misled into believing that this dispute arose only days before the proposed event. The case has been pending for a considerable period. The injunction has been in existence since 29th May, 2025. The parties are fully aware of its existence, and applications relating to it remain before the court.
We therefore urge all sons and daughters of Ogugu to remain peaceful, law-abiding, and respectful of the judicial process while awaiting the final determination of the matter.
Justice delayed is not justice denied. The courts remain the proper and lawful forum for resolving this dispute, and their authority must be respected by all.
Signed:
Dr. Omachoko O. Shedrack, Ph.D.
Concerned Son of Ogugu
