Alleged Defamation: Iwuanyanwu Wades Into Ogunewe, AA Chairman’s Face-off

The President General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo and elder statesman, Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu has promised to wade into the matter between General Lincoln Ogunewe(Rtd) and Chairman of Action Alliance,AA in Imo State, Comrade Ifeanyi Okponwa-Eze.
Ogunewe, the candidate of Action Alliance,AA in the 2023 Governorship election in Imo state, had after the poll, petitioned the police, leading to a suit in a Magistrate court on alleged defamation against his person by the Party Chairman (Okponwa-Eze).
But the Inter-Party Advisory Council (I-PAC) Imo State, Wednesday , visited Chief Iwuanyanwu and called on him to plead with Ogunewe to withdraw the matter.
I-PAC led by its Imo State Chairman, Ichie Levi Ekeh, said it decided to bring the matter to Iwuanyanwu’s knowledge with the aim of exploring the option of out-of-court settlement.
The I-PAC believed it was a family matter that needed to be resolved amicably.
Addressing the council, Chief Iwuanyanwu expressed happiness that IPAC brought the matter to him, as the apex leader of the Igbo.
He noted that there was no need for the Igbo to fight one another.
Iwuanyanwu described the matter as a mere political affairs that shouldn’t be taken very far.
He promised to do the needful.
It could be recalled that at the last sitting of the court, in the course of the testimony of the Prosecution Witness,PW1 , a drama ensued when the Prosecution Counsel and OC Legal of the Imo State Police Command tendered a document which he said was the Statement of the PW1 (Mr. Cosmos Unakalamba) made to the Police.
The Defence Counsel, Barr. Ifeoma Ekeh, raised an objection on the grounds that the said Statement of the PW1 was not part of the documents in the investigation report given to her by the police, insisting that the statement was made to the police after the commencement of trial.
While the defence counsel insisted that the said statement be thrown out, the presiding magistrate, His Worship, Obinna Njamanze, called on the Prosecution Counsel to explain why the PW1’s statement was not in the investigation report given to the defence counsel.
The Prosecution Counsel at this point owned up and said the investigation was not done by him and that the statement of the PW1 was not part of the initial documents he gave to the defence counsel.
At this point, the Magistrate enjoined the defence counsel to accept the statement while adjournment was taken for her to go and study the statement before cross-examining the PW1, a position which the defence counsel reluctantly concurred to.
The court, however, could not sit on April 10, as earlier scheduled, due to public holiday.