NJC Investigates 18 Imo Judges Over Alleged Age Falsification Scandal

The National Judicial Council (NJC) has confirmed that it is currently probing serious allegations of age falsification involving 18 judges in the Imo State judiciary, a development that has sparked widespread concerns about the integrity of the judicial system in the state.

According to the NJC’s Deputy Director of Information, Kemi Ogedengbe, the council is treating the matter with utmost seriousness and is in the process of conducting a comprehensive review of the allegations. Speaking to The PUNCH via telephone on Thursday, Ogedengbe disclosed that the outcome of the investigation could be determined by the end of April 2025.

“These are weighty allegations and such matters demand a thorough investigation before any definitive action can be taken,” she explained. “The NJC is looking into the petition and is expected to make its findings known soon. Until then, no action will be taken until the process is concluded.”

APC Eyes Victory In FCT As Ganduje Welcomes PDP Defectors Ahead Of 2027 Elections

Alleged Age Falsification: Integrity of Imo Judiciary Under Scrutiny

The investigation follows a petition submitted by the Civil Society Engagement Platform (CSEP), a non-governmental watchdog group committed to promoting accountability in public institutions. The group labeled the matter as an “unprecedented breach of judicial integrity” and called for swift disciplinary action against those found culpable.

According to the petition, the 18 judges are accused of deliberately altering or falsifying their birth records, either to prolong their tenure on the bench beyond the mandatory retirement age or to qualify for appointments they would otherwise be ineligible for. The CSEP alleged that this practice compromises not only the individual credibility of the judges but also the public’s trust in the judiciary as a whole.

In a detailed letter addressed to NJC Chairman and Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the petitioners highlighted major inconsistencies in official documents including Law School registration forms, Department of State Services (DSS) background checks, and the Nominal Rolls of the judiciary. The group submitted documentary evidence labeled Exhibits 001 to 018, outlining conflicting personal data of the judges in question.

Among the most notable cases cited in the petition is that of Justice I. O. Agugua, who reportedly has two different birth dates recorded—10 May 1959 and 10 May 1960. The petition also mentioned that Agugua is facing separate allegations of judicial misconduct.

Similarly, Justice C. A. Ononeze-Madu is said to have conflicting dates of birth listed as 7 July 1963 and 7 July 1965. Another high-profile case involves Justice M. E. Nwagbaoso, whose birth records reportedly reflect both 20 August 1952 and 20 August 1962.

The petition implicates 15 other judges with similar discrepancies, each allegedly maintaining two sets of conflicting personal data across various official platforms. These revelations have raised serious red flags over transparency and governance within the Imo State judiciary.

Legal analysts and civil society organizations have reacted to the news with alarm, stressing that if proven true, such actions amount to not just administrative misconduct but also a violation of the rule of law. The judiciary, being the last hope of the common man, they argue, must be above suspicion and reproach.

The NJC, which is constitutionally empowered to regulate the appointment, promotion, and discipline of judicial officers, is expected to reconvene in the coming weeks to review the findings of the investigation. The council’s decision could result in disciplinary actions ranging from suspension to outright dismissal, depending on the weight of evidence against the accused judges.

If the allegations are upheld, the scandal may prompt a larger conversation around reforming the judiciary’s appointment and oversight mechanisms, particularly as concerns about credibility and corruption continue to plague Nigeria’s justice system.

For now, the NJC remains tight-lipped about specific timelines or potential outcomes. However, sources familiar with the council’s internal workings suggest that the urgency and magnitude of the allegations will likely ensure that swift and decisive action is taken once investigations are completed.

As the case unfolds, attention remains firmly fixed on the NJC’s response, which could either restore public confidence or further erode faith in an institution already under intense scrutiny.