By Okechukwu Nwanguma
The Anambra State Government owes its people an explanation. Why does Ken Emeakayi continue to occupy a sensitive security position while serious questions concerning his alleged involvement in abuses remain unresolved?
From the accountability questions raised by the Anambra State Truth, Justice and Peace Commission, through the allegations arising from Achalla, to the recent court intervention concerning the Chukwujekwu family, the government faces a growing obligation to respond openly and substantively.
These matters differ in their facts and procedural status. They should not be collapsed into a declaration of guilt. But together, they raise an unavoidable question about public trust: what public-interest purpose is served by retaining a security adviser without transparently addressing allegations that bear directly on his fitness for that office?
Security authority carries enormous responsibility. Those entrusted with it can influence the deployment of armed personnel, the treatment of suspects and the relationship between government and communities. Their conduct must therefore attract close scrutiny.
According to Professor Chidi Odinkalu, who chaired Anambra’s Truth, Justice and Peace Commission, the commission recommended a review of the unfinished prosecution concerning the killings of former Nigerian Bar Association Onitsha branch chairman, Barnabas Igwe, and his pregnant wife, Amaka, with a view to ensuring effective accountability. Odinkalu has publicly questioned Emeakayi’s appointment in light of those unresolved issues.
A commission recommendation is not a criminal conviction. Nevertheless, a government that established a truth-seeking process has a responsibility to explain what it has done with its findings. Where recommendations concern a person subsequently entrusted with security responsibilities, that duty becomes especially compelling.
What review was undertaken? What conclusions were reached? What reasons supported the appointment? Residents deserve answers that can be examined, rather than an expectation that they should simply trust the governor’s discretion.
The Achalla complaints raise further concerns.
In petitions and public interventions, the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre has raised allegations concerning arrests, detention and interference with police processes. These include the allegation that a directive to grant bail was frustrated following intervention attributed to Emeakayi, and that detainees were left handcuffed overnight in a bus outside a security facility before being returned to police custody.
These allegations require independent investigation. The government should establish who authorised the actions, what lawful authority was exercised, and whether the affected persons’ rights were respected. Emeakayi must have a fair opportunity to respond, and his response must be tested against records and other evidence.
The latest development concerns the Chukwujekwu family.
According to published reporting, Justice Ike Ogu of the Anambra State High Court, Awka, on November 2, 2026, ordered the immediate unsealing of the family’s house and the return of its keys. The court also restrained the respondents and their agents from further action against the applicants pending determination of the suit. Emeakayi is among the respondents.
The substantive allegations remain before the court. Being named as a respondent does not establish personal liability. Yet the government cannot reasonably treat a judicial intervention involving its security adviser as a matter beneath public explanation.
Has the house been reopened? Have the keys been returned? Are the applicants able to occupy their home without intimidation? What steps has the government taken to ensure that its officials and security structures comply with the order? These are practical questions about whether judicial protection translates into safety.
The recurring issue is the relationship between public power and accountability. When serious complaints repeatedly involve an official entrusted with security responsibilities, government must demonstrate that its institutions can investigate that official fairly and independently.
It is insufficient to insist that no conviction has been secured. Criminal responsibility and suitability for public office are related but distinct questions. A criminal court determines guilt according to the applicable evidential standard. A governor must also assess whether an appointee commands public confidence, exercises sound judgment and can remain in office without compromising an investigation or discouraging witnesses.
The presumption of innocence protects Emeakayi against prejudgment. It does not confer an entitlement to remain in a politically appointed security office while every unresolved concern is placed beyond administrative scrutiny.
Governor Chukwuma Soludo should require him to step aside pending a credible, independent and time-bound investigation into the relevant allegations. Such a process must offer procedural fairness, protect complainants and witnesses, preserve evidence and publish reasoned findings.
The government should also publish the relevant portions of the Truth, Justice and Peace Commission’s report, together with an account of the action taken on its recommendations. Legitimate protections for witnesses can be maintained without concealing the government’s substantive response.
For the Achalla complaints, investigators should examine custody records, bail instructions, communications, and the chain of command. In the Chukwujekwu proceedings, immediate compliance with the court’s order must be verified, while the substantive case proceeds without interference.
Anambra residents have endured insecurity and have every reason to demand effective protection. That need makes accountable security leadership more urgent. Fear of crime cannot become a permanent justification for leaving the conduct of security officials unexamined.
Effective security depends on public cooperation. Residents must be willing to report threats, provide information, and trust that seeking official assistance will not expose them to further harm. Unanswered allegations against a senior security official weaken that trust. The governor should therefore explain what demonstrable public benefit justifies Emeakayi’s continued retention and what safeguards protect residents while these matters remain unresolved.
Silence leaves complainants uncertain, public confidence weakened, and the official himself without the benefit of a credible process capable of establishing the facts. Anambra deserves security leadership whose authority rests on lawful conduct and public trust. Governor Soludo must show, through transparent action, that those entrusted with protecting the people are themselves answerable to the law.
- Okechukwu Nwanguma is the Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC).
