Rt. Hon. Chinedum Orji – The Law Presumes Every Accused Innocent Until Proven Guilty – Barrister Nzube

By Barrister Iheji Nzube Christian

I have gone through one widely circulated petition allegedly submitted by certain individuals claiming to be concerned members of the All Progressives Congress (APC), seeking the disqualification of Rt. Hon. Chinedum Orji is not participating in the forthcoming House of Representatives primary election.

Ordinarily, such politically motivated publications, speculative allegations, and media sensationalism would not deserve any response as it is clearly politically motivated orchestrated by Aspirants afraid of his person, achievements and pedigree.

However, to set the record straight and prevent unsuspecting members of the public from being misled, it has become necessary to respond to the deliberate distortions and legal misconceptions contained in the said flying petition from a legal point of view.

At the heart of the petition lies a dangerous attempt to substitute mere allegations and pending trial for proven criminal liability.

The presumption of innocence is codified in various international, regional, and national documents and could be seen as a universal principle widely supported in a multiplicity of international instruments.

At the international level, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set the pace when it provides in Article 11(1) as follows:

“Everyone charged with the penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for defence.”

In the same par with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also guaranteed the right to presumption of innocence, as follows: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”Regional human rights instruments such as Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also state that:

Every individual shall have the right to have their case heard. This comprises: The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court.

In the same vein, Article 48 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings: “Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

At the national level, the presumption of innocence is explicitly recognised as entrenched in section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which provides unequivocally that:

“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty”.

The law in Nigeria is firmly settled that every person accused of any wrongdoing remains innocent until his guilt is established by a competent court of law.

The presumption of innocence is a cardinal principle of the common law based on the accusatorial system. It remains one of the strongest pillars of Nigeria’s democratic and judicial system. It is not suspended because an individual is a politician, public office holder, or aspirant for elective office.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has repeatedly affirmed this sacred constitutional safeguard in several authorities.

In the case of Ajayi v. State {2013} LPELR-19941{SC}, the apex court reaffirmed that mere allegations, investigations, or even pending criminal charges do not amount to conviction. see also Yahaya v. State {2024} LPELR-62542{SC}.

Similarly, in Fawehinmi v. IGP {2002} 7 NWLR {pt.767} 606{SC}, the Supreme Court emphasised that the presumption of innocence remains valid and binding until a competent court pronounces otherwise after due trial.

Also, in Fakoya v. State {2025} LPELR-82623(CA), the court maintained that parties and institutions must respect due process and avoid prejudging matters pending before courts of competent jurisdiction stating that suspicion, however well placed, does not amount to prima facie evidence.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court reiterated in Emmanuel Ibeziako v. COP, {1963} FSC 329/62 “that criminal responsibility cannot arise from mere accusation or criminal trial”.

It is therefore legally irresponsible, politically mischievous, and morally indefensible for anybody to portray Rt. Hon. Chinedum Orji is guilty when no court in Nigeria has convicted him of any offence whatsoever. See the aforementioned judicial authorities.

The petitioners deliberately failed to state the most important legal fact that there is presently no judgment of conviction against Rt. Hon. Chinedum Orji by any court of law in Nigeria.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), like every investigative agency, possesses constitutional powers to investigate allegations.

However, investigation does not translate to guilt, just as filing charges does not amount to conviction.

If mere investigation or trial were enough to destroy political aspirations, then several prominent Nigerian political figures who faced investigations, prosecutions, or politically charged trials would never have occupied public offices or continued their political careers. Examples abound in Nigeria’s political history.

The attempt to pressure the APC Screening Committee into disqualifying Rt. Hon. Chinedum Orji on the basis of unproven allegations amounts to political persecution clothed in legal language.

Political contests should be decided by party members and the electorate not by media propaganda, orchestrated petitions, or speculative accusations designed to tarnish reputations.

It is also important to state that the law recognises the distinction between accusation and conviction. Until a competent court delivers a final judgment establishing criminal liability, every citizen retains his full constitutional rights, including the right to participate in politics and aspire to public office.

The Supreme Court has consistently warned against trial by media and public conviction without judicial pronouncement.

The petition therefore represents nothing more than an attempt to manipulate public perception and achieve through political blackmail what opponents cannot secure through democratic participation.

Rt. Hon. Chinedum Orji remains constitutionally qualified, legally competent, and politically entitled to participate in any electoral process unless and until otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The screening committee is therefore urged to disregard the petition and allow the rule of law, constitutional democracy, and internal party processes to prevail over political vendetta and sensationalism.

No Nigerian citizen should be condemned based on allegations alone.

The Constitution remains supreme on the fact that mere allegation, suspicion, arrest, investigation or even pendency of a criminal charge does not amount to conviction.