NBM vs Edo State Gov: Read Update on First Court Sitting Over Alleged Unlawful Demolition of Secretariat 

Following the NBM vs Edo State Gov: Read Update on First Court Sitting Over Alleged Unlawful Demolition of Secretariat 

The Federal High Court sitting in Benin City today, 5th June 2025, held the preliminary hearing in the high-profile suit filed by the NBM of Africa against the Governor of Edo State and two others, over the alleged unlawful demolition of the NBM secretariat.

The lawsuit, filed under Suit No. FHC/13/CS/48/2025 challenges the alleged unlawful demolition of the NBM Secretariat, with serious claims of fundamental human rights violations.

The case, filed under suit number FHC/13/CS/48/2025, seeks the enforcement of fundamental human rights allegedly violated during the said demolition. The Applicants, led by Chief Reginald Asiuwhu, appeared in court alongside 26 other representatives, including:

1. Raphael Chukwuzubelu

2. Ikem Onyeka

3. C.E. Ojotule

4. S.W. Onoghwiegbe

5. Emmanuel Atowo

6. Chikwado Peter Enyigwe

7. Magnus Urueshone

8. Udoudom Chritain

9. Tsaku Ayaka Michael

10. Emeka Kingsley Anueyiagu

11. Peter Ajonye Samuel

12. Tobenna Kingsley Nwokwu

13. C.O. Ekumankama

14. O.J. Edegba

15. E.O. Uhunamure

16. L.O. Eze

17. H.J. Momodu

18. Uwa Okoh

19. Paul Badairi

20. E. Ehijele

21. Emeka Chigbo

22. Irunoje Garuba

23. A. Akhere

24. L. Omorodion

25. A.C. Okhademeh

26. I.J. Andrew Imiefoh (Mrs)

The 1st Defendant, the Governor of Edo State, was represented by a legal team led by H.A. Bello, SAN, and J.E. Ogagaworia. The 2nd Defendant was represented by O.C. Igbinedion, while the 3rd Defendant had no legal representation in court.

The court bailiff confirmed that all parties had been duly served, though he admitted misplacing the proof of service for the 3rd Defendant.

Both the 1st and 2nd Defendants acknowledged service of the application. Counsel to the 1st Defendant, H.A. Bello, SAN, informed the court that he was only briefed by his client on June 3, 2025, despite service being effected on May 23, 2025. Similarly, counsel for the 2nd Defendant stated that he was also briefed on the same date.

The presiding judge expressed dissatisfaction with the late briefing and lack of preparedness by the defendants’ counsel. Following an application for adjournment by the learned silk to enable the respondents to file their responses, the matter was adjourned to June 16, 2025, for definite hearing.

The court emphasized that the next hearing will proceed without delay, and all responses must be filed before the adjourned date.