The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC), alongside a lawyer from Agunese Mmaku Community in Enugu State, has raised alarm over conflicting accounts surrounding the death of 19-year-old Nnamdi Chidi and the continued detention of Mr. Ifeanyi Okeke.
Speaking at a joint press briefing in Lagos, RULAAC Executive Director, Mr. Okechukwu Nwanguma, stressed that the group was not trying to shield anyone from investigation but was focused on truth, due process, and preventing a miscarriage of justice.
According to him, two sharply conflicting narratives exist. One claims the teenager died from injuries sustained during a violent attack, allegedly supported by an autopsy report indicating homicide. The other account, attributed to the boy’s mother, denies any assault and insists he died from a pre-existing medical condition.
RULAAC argues that both versions cannot be true, and keeping a citizen in detention without first resolving such contradictions raises serious concerns in a constitutional democracy. The group also questioned the credibility of the autopsy, asking who conducted it, their qualifications, and whether proper medico-legal standards were followed.
Nwanguma warned that detaining someone on the basis of disputed forensic evidence and inconsistent witness accounts could violate Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee personal liberty and fair hearing.
He further pointed to long-standing internal disputes within Agunese Mmaku, expressing fears that police processes might be used to settle personal or community scores instead of uncovering the truth.
Adding context, Mr. Vincent Okafor, Legal Adviser to the Agunese Town Union, said Okeke’s detention since November 30, 2025, had created fear and uncertainty in the community. He disclosed that an extraordinary town meeting held on January 5, 2026—attended by all six kindreds, including that of the deceased—concluded that available facts did not establish murder.
Both speakers called on the Inspector-General of Police to order an independent, transparent, and credible review of the case, reconcile conflicting medical and witness accounts, and ensure justice is driven by law, evidence, and fairness—not community rivalry or influence.
