PRESS STATEMENT
For Immediate Release
8th September, 2026
WHEN LAW ENFORCERS BREAK THE RULES: CEHRAWS DEMANDS ANSWERS IN THE VICTOR UDE CASE
The Centre for Human Rights Advocacy and Wholesome Society (CEHRAWS) is deeply concerned about the circumstances surrounding the arrest, prolonged police detention, arraignment and subsequent remand of Mr. Ude Chikadibia Mastertruth (Victor Ude), and calls for an impartial examination of the conduct of the law-enforcement authorities involved.
According to information made available to CEHRAWS, Victor was arrested in Abuja on 19 August 2026, transferred to Imo State and detained at the X-Squad, State Criminal Investigation Department, Owerri, from 20 August until his arraignment on 3 September 2026. His family reportedly made efforts to secure his release on police bail during this period without success.
Of particular concern is that the decision to arraign him reportedly came shortly after the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) questioned the police over his prolonged detention. The family was allegedly given very little notice of the arraignment and had to urgently seek legal representation.
Victor was subsequently arraigned before the Magistrate Court in Owerri on a five-count charge under Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, as amended in 2024. Following his plea, the prosecution sought his remand in correctional custody. His counsel applied for bail, but the application was declined on the ground that the Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to grant bail in respect of the alleged offences. The court thereafter ordered his remand pursuant to the applicable remand procedure.
CEHRAWS considers it important to distinguish the remand order made by the court from the more troubling question of the approximately two weeks Victor allegedly spent in police custody before being brought before a court. The fact that a subsequent remand proceeding may have complied with the applicable statutory procedure does not automatically validate any preceding detention that was unlawful or unsupported by proper judicial authority.
Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees the right to personal liberty and establishes safeguards governing arrest and detention. Section 36 guarantees fair hearing, while Section 34 protects the dignity of the human person. These constitutional protections apply to every person, including persons accused of cybercrime or other offences.
Furthermore, the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Imo State, 2020, particularly Sections 225 and 226, provides the statutory framework for remand proceedings. The exercise of police powers must equally remain subject to the Constitution, applicable laws and established rules of criminal procedure.
CEHRAWS is particularly concerned by the apparent convergence of a private dispute, a complaint involving a serving Magistrate, police intervention, prolonged detention and subsequent criminal prosecution. We are not, at this stage, declaring that the police or any judicial officer acted improperly. However, the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to warrant transparent and independent scrutiny.
The law must never become an instrument for settling personal disputes, intimidating critics or punishing a person before conviction. A complainant’s status as a judicial officer cannot confer immunity from scrutiny, just as a suspect’s alleged misconduct cannot strip him of his constitutional rights.
We therefore call on the Imo State Police Command, the Nigeria Police Force , the Imo State Judiciary, the National Human Rights Commission and other relevant oversight institutions to ensure that the circumstances surrounding Victor’s arrest and detention are independently examined.
Specifically, the authorities should clarify:
✓ What was the precise legal basis for Victor’s detention from 20 August to 3 September 2026?
✓ Was there any valid judicial order authorising his continued detention during that period?
✓ Why were reported requests for police bail unsuccessful?
✓ Why did the decision to arraign him reportedly follow immediately after RULAAC questioned his prolonged detention?
✓ Why was his family allegedly given inadequate notice to secure legal representation?
✓ Was the complaint independently investigated, particularly given the alleged involvement of a serving Magistrate in the underlying dispute?
✓ Was the five-count charge subjected to appropriate legal review before arraignment?
CEHRAWS also urges the relevant authorities to ensure that Victor has prompt and unhindered access to legal representation, and that any application for bail or other appropriate judicial relief is determined strictly in accordance with law.
Our position is simple: the police are not above the law; judicial officers are not above scrutiny; and suspects are not beneath the protection of the Constitution.
Law-enforcement agencies exist to protect the rule of law, not to circumvent it. Likewise, the judiciary must remain a sanctuary of justice, fairness and due process, not merely a formal stop in a process that may already have violated a citizen’s rights.
CEHRAWS therefore calls for transparency, accountability and strict adherence to due process in the Victor Ude matter. If there has been no wrongdoing, a transparent review will establish that fact. If there has been an abuse of power, those responsible must be held accountable.
The rule of law cannot be selectively applied. It must protect both the complainant and the accused, the powerful and the vulnerable, the police officer and the citizen.
Signed:
Chuka Peter Okoye
Executive Director, CEHRAWS
cehraws@gmail.com | +234(0)808-035-1242(WhatsApp only)
Facebook: @cehraws
