Court Rebukes Police for Attempt to Deny Osita Obi Defence Documents in Catholic Church Defamation Suit

By Our Correspondent

A Chief Magistrate’s Court sitting in Amawbia, Awka South Local Government Area of Anambra State, on Monday faulted the Nigeria Police Force over what it described as an attempt to deny an accused person, Comrade Osita, access to documents vital to the preparation of his defence, warning that such conduct could stall the trial entirely.

The court, presided over by Her Worship, Chief Magistrate Esther Chukwu, ordered the police to release all relevant documents requested by Comrade Osita Obi, who is standing trial over alleged defamatory statements against the Catholic Archdiocese of Awka.

The ruling was delivered in Charge No. AWK/C/2025, between the Commissioner of Police, Anambra State Command, and Osita Obi, which arose from allegations that the defendant published defamatory statements on Facebook against the Catholic Diocese of Awka and a Catholic priest.

In a strongly worded pronouncement, the magistrate frowned at the prosecution’s resistance to furnishing the defence with requested documents, holding that it is trite and settled law that the prosecution must make available all materials germane to an accused person’s defence.

She warned that the implication of withholding such documents is that the matter may not proceed at all until the constitutional requirement is met.

Quoting Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the magistrate stressed that the provision guaranteeing an accused “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence” is not merely theoretical.

“In clear legal terms,” the court held, “a person standing trial must be placed in a real and practical position to defend himself effectively—not merely in theory.”

The charge against Obi alleges that on or about August 15, 2025, he knowingly and intentionally published defamatory statements through Facebook pages identified as “OSITA OBI” and “IGBO HISTORY,” in which he allegedly compared the Catholic Diocese of Awka to Boko Haram and bandits, among other statements.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 324(a) and punishable under Section 325 of the Criminal Code, Cap 36, Vol. II, Revised Laws of Anambra State, 1991.

When the matter was called, the defendant was present in court with his legal team.

The prosecution, represented by Inspector Edith Okonkwo, informed the court that the lead police prosecutor, Mr. A. G. Obi, was ill and sought an adjournment.

Although defence counsel, Mr. Martin Obi, did not oppose the adjournment, he urged the court to compel the police to release documents earlier requested by the defence to enable proper preparation for trial.

Relying on Section 36(6)(b) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision in Okoye v. Commissioner of Police, defence counsel argued that access to relevant prosecution documents is a core component of the right to fair hearing.

He told the court that repeated written requests had been made to the police without success.

The prosecution, however, opposed the request, arguing that the defence could not dictate to the police which documents to release.

Inspector Okonkwo maintained that the prosecution was only obligated to disclose documents it intended to rely on at trial.

Rejecting that argument, the magistrate ruled that denying the defence access to material documents necessary for its case could undermine the integrity of the proceedings and amount to a denial of fair hearing.

Consequently, the court ordered the police to make available all documents requested by the defendant that are necessary for the preparation of his defence and adjourned the matter to February 16, 2026, for the commencement of hearing.

Speaking to journalists after the proceedings, defence counsel, Mr. Martin Obi, disclosed that the requested documents had been formally itemised and communicated to the police.

He insisted that without access to those materials, the trial could not proceed fairly, adding that continued refusal would amount to a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.