The Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting at Jabi on Monday, October 13, 2025, commenced hearing in the N550 million defamation suit filed by Senator Chris Anyanwu against former Imo State Governor, Ikedi Ohakim.

Justice M.I. Sani overruled a preliminary objection by Ohakim’s legal team seeking to halt the trial pending the conduct of a pre-trial conference.

Lead counsel to the defendant, Ken Njemanze (SAN), argued that the matter was not ripe for hearing under court rules, noting that no pre-trial conference had been conducted to streamline issues.

“According to the rules, there is a need for pre-trial, and it is fundamental. This would help us streamline the issues,” Njemanze submitted.

However, counsel to the claimant, Umeh Kalu (SAN), opposed the objection, insisting that the plaintiff was ready to proceed.

“There is no requirement for a pre-trial conference in this matter. Our witnesses have travelled long distances and are ready to testify. We cannot enslave ourselves to procedural technicalities when the interest of justice is at stake. No party will suffer any injustice if we proceed to trial". He further submitted that "there is nothing as pre-trial in the case. The relevant order in this case is Order 38 (1). It clearly empowers the Court to proceed to trial when pleadings have been made by parties. The two parties are in court and we are ready for trial'

Justice Sani, in a brief ruling, dismissed the objection and allowed the trial to commence, saying: "I hereby order the plaintiff’s counsel to proceed with his witnesses.”

The claimant’s first witness, Dr. Joyce Ejukonemu, a Gender Protection Specialist and Senior Researcher, was led in evidence by Kunle Kosoko of Umeh Kalu Chambers.

She adopted her witness statement on oath and referenced The Nation newspaper publication dated January 12, 2025, alongside a press release issued on January 24 by Ohakim.

Kalu sought to tender copies of the publication and press release as exhibits. However, Njemanze objected, arguing that the documents were inadmissible.

“These are photocopies, not original certified true copies as required under Section 104 of the Evidence Act. There is no receipt showing payment for certification either,” he said.

Kalu countered that the documents bore the necessary endorsements from the National Library and complied with the law.

“Section 104 allows for certified copies, and the endorsement shows payment was made,” he argued, before applying to tender the original certified copy.

Despite further resistance from the defence, the court admitted the documents in evidence, marking the newspaper publication as Exhibit 1.

“This court has the discretion to admit any relevant document,” Justice Sani ruled.

Kalu proceeded to tender further documents including a January 24, 2025 press statement and a copy of a report from Naija News.

Njemanze objected to the Naija News document on the grounds that it was electronically generated and not accompanied by a certificate of compliance under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, and, the Naija News report on the ground that it is a photocopy and no foundation was laid.

Kalu responded to the objection and submitted that the Certificate required by Section 84 of the Evidence Act can be done orally or by producing a certificate, and, the witness statement on oath contains the oral certification. He however opted to withdraw the press release release without further submissions.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to December 1, 3, and 5, 2025, for ruling on pending admissibility issues and continuation of the trial.

Senator Chris Anyanwu sued Ohakim over comments he allegedly made in an interview published on January 12, 2025, which she claims were defamatory.Ohakim made his statement in response to Anyanwu's autobiography, Bold Leap.

Anyanwu is demanding N550 million in damages, alongside a public apology to be published in two national newspapers, including The Nation.

While the second defendant, Vintage Press Ltd., publishers of The Nation, has reportedly issued an apology, Ohakim has defended the comments as “fair comment” in his legal response.