By Izunna Okafor, Awka
The leadership crisis rocking the Amichi Development Union (ADU) in Nnewi South Local Government Area of Anambra State has deepened, following allegations of an extension of the tenure of the union’s Executives by the State Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs, Mr. Vin Ifeanyi Ezeaka.
The action by the Commissioner has sparked off a chain of reactions and counter-reactions among some stakeholders in the community, who have appealed to the Anambra State Governor, Prof. Chukwuma Charles Soludo, to intervene and ensure that the affairs of the town union are governed by its constitution and a subsisting order of the High Court.
The aggrieved members, who raised the concerns in a statement on the development, described the situation as a threat to grassroots democracy, stressing that the election and administration of town unions constitute an important component of participatory governance in Anambra State.
The controversy is rooted in the 2022 election of the President-General of the ADU, the outcome of which was challenged in court by some aggrieved members of the community. The Anambra State Government had subsequently certified the President-General, Mr Cletus Udebuani, as the President-General, but the leadership dispute continued to be litigated.
The matter is currently before the High Court of Anambra State, Nnewi Judicial Division, where the court, on July 21, 2026, issued an interlocutory order directing the parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the applications before it.
According to the aggrieved members, the order specifically restrained the plaintiffs and Udebuani from assuming or occupying the office of President-General, while also barring the Registered Trustees of the union and other parties from conducting a fresh election into the position pending the determination of the case or the vacation of the order.
The group, however, said the court order must be considered alongside the provisions of the registered constitution of the Amichi Development Union, particularly its provisions on the tenure of the President-General and the management of the union in the event of a leadership crisis or vacancy.
It maintained that the ADU constitution prescribes a four-year, non-renewable tenure for the President-General and contains no provision for extending the tenure, retaining an outgoing President-General in office or creating a caretaker arrangement.
The group further said the constitution provides for the Registered Trustees to assume interim management of the affairs of the union whenever a crisis or leadership vacuum arises.
Against this background, the aggrieved members said Udebuani’s four-year tenure elapsed on August 6, 2026, but alleged that the Commissioner, Ezeaka, issued a letter to him the following day purporting to extend his tenure until the next adjourned court date in 2027.
They further alleged that the decision was taken without the input or consultation of the Registered Trustees of the Union.
The development, according to them, raises questions over the extent to which an administrative directive can affect the operation of a registered community constitution or a subsisting order of a competent court.
The aggrieved members argued that the July 21 court order did not create a fresh tenure for Udebuani, insisting that an order to maintain the status quo could not be interpreted as extending a fixed constitutional term after its expiration.
They also cited the principle arising from judicial decisions, including Ladoja v. INEC, arguing that the preservation of a status quo in relation to an elected office applies to an existing and unexpired tenure and does not automatically confer a new term after the prescribed tenure has elapsed.
The group therefore described the alleged extension as an unwarranted executive intervention capable of creating a conflict between the administrative directive, the union’s constitution and the subsisting court order.
It argued that where the tenure of the executive had expired and a leadership vacuum existed, the constitutional responsibility for interim management should rest with the Registered Trustees rather than an outgoing executive whose tenure had elapsed.
The stakeholders further appealed to Governor Soludo to intervene, noting that the Governor had consistently emphasised the rule of law as a central pillar of his administration and had also expressed the intention to strengthen town unions as an important tier of grassroots administration.
They argued that the democratic process at the community level must be protected if the broader objectives of participatory governance in the state are to be achieved.
The aggrieved members consequently called for adherence to the ADU constitution and the subsisting court order, while urging the Governor to caution the Commissioner and ensure that the dispute is resolved through lawful and democratic processes.
They said the Registered Trustees were set to assume the management of the union in accordance with the constitution and convene an Emergency General Assembly to deliberate on the way forward.
They stressed that the survival of grassroots democracy depends on respect for constitutional provisions, court orders and the right of communities to determine their leadership through established democratic processes.
