A High Court sitting in Iho, Ikeduru Local Government Area of Imo State, on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, reaffirmed Prof. Kyrian Chinedu Ndikom as the authentic Traditional Prime Minister (TPM) of Obi Mbieri Autonomous Community, bringing to three the number of consecutive judgments that have favoured him in the ongoing leadership tussle.

Delivering judgment in Suit No: HIH/62/2023, the court cited Chapter 32/12 of the Obi Mbieri Constitution, emphasizing that the Traditional Ruler lacks the authority to unilaterally remove the TPM except in proven cases of criminal misconduct. The presiding judge also faulted the contradictory claims by Chief Uzoma Ekeanyanwu and his group, who had both denied Ndikom’s acceptance of the role and simultaneously accused him of convening community meetings on behalf of the Eze.

With this latest ruling, Prof. Ndikom’s legitimacy as the rightful TPM stands further solidified, dealing another blow to his detractors and putting to rest months of tension and misinformation that had clouded leadership affairs in Obi Mbieri.

Advertisements
HAVE YOU READ?:  I’m still in shock over level of deviation from established laws, guidelines, procedures - Mike Igini speaks on 2023 elections

Reacting to the judgment, Chief J.A.H. Osuji, spokesperson for the Eze’s cabinet, hailed the court’s decision as “a true reflection of the people’s will and a legal endorsement of Professor Ndikom’s selfless and visionary leadership.”

Supporters of the embattled TPM celebrated across the community, pointing to the unprecedented developmental strides, unity, and renewed communal spirit achieved under his leadership since assuming office.

The judgment is also seen as a stern warning to elements seeking to destabilize the peace and progress currently enjoyed in Obi Mbieri. Many community members believe the ruling will finally bring closure to the dispute and allow Prof. Ndikom to continue focusing on grassroots development and cultural preservation.

Legal experts and community stakeholders present at the court described the judgment as “water-tight and unassailable,” urging all parties to accept the outcome in the interest of peace and unity.

Advertisements