Background to the Dispute
Mr. Caleb Ude reported that his son, Mr. Ude Chikadibia Mastertruth, also known as Victor Ude, is about 33 years old and a computer programming expert. Victor had also served as a pastor for approximately nine years under Apostle Love Judah of Truth Assembly International Churches, Owerri, Imo State.
According to Mr. Caleb Ude, a serious disagreement subsequently developed between Victor and Apostle Love Judah following allegations concerning an intimate relationship between the Apostle and Victor’s wife, Mrs. Miracle Ude.
Mr. Caleb Ude stated that Miracle disclosed the alleged relationship to Victor and also informed her father. Miracle’s father subsequently confronted Apostle Love Judah over the allegation.
It was further alleged that Apostle Love Judah discussed the confrontation with His Worship Akuna Opara, described as both a pastor associated with the church and a Magistrate in the Imo State Judiciary.
According to the account supplied by Victor’s father, Magistrate Akuna Opara thereafter contacted Miracle’s father, warned him against disparaging Apostle Love Judah and allegedly made derogatory comments about Victor.
Social Media Dispute
Victor reportedly reacted strongly to Magistrate Akuna Opara’s intervention and subsequently made several social media posts concerning her.
By this time, Victor and his wife were reportedly residing in Abuja.
Those publications eventually became the subject of a criminal complaint and subsequently formed a substantial part of the criminal charges brought against Victor.
Arrest in Abuja and Prolonged Police Detention
Victor was arrested in Abuja on 19 August 2026 and transferred to Imo State. From 20 August 2026, he was detained at the X-Squad, State Criminal Investigation Department (State CID), Imo State Police Command, Owerri.
The Investigating Police Officer was identified simply as Charles.
According to Victor’s father, repeated efforts to secure his release on police bail were unsuccessful. Victor consequently remained in police custody from 20 August until his arraignment on 3 September 2026.
RULAAC’s Intervention and the Sudden Decision to Arraign Victor*
An important aspect of the chronology is the timing of the decision to take Victor to court.
After receiving the complaint from Mr. Caleb Ude concerning his son’s continued detention, the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) reached out directly to the police officer handling the case.
RULAAC specifically sought clarification about the circumstances of the case, including why Victor had remained in police custody for such a prolonged period and whether the Police had any account of events materially different from the account provided by Victor’s father.
The police officer replied only that he was aware of the case. He did not provide any substantive response to the questions concerning the prolonged detention or indicate that the Police had a different version of the events from that presented by the family.
Significantly, the decision to arraign Victor followed almost immediately after this intervention by RULAAC.
Not long after RULAAC’s communication with the police officer, Victor’s father contacted RULAAC to report that the same police officer had suddenly called him to say that the Police were taking his son to court.
Mr. Caleb Ude, who had apparently not had sufficient prior notice to arrange legal representation, urgently asked RULAAC to assist in securing a lawyer for his son.
RULAAC consequently referred him to Barrister Chidi Agu, whom he contacted immediately. Barrister Agu responded and went to the court.
However, by the time counsel arrived, Victor had already been arraigned, his plea had been taken and the Magistrate had ordered his remand in correctional custody.
The sequence is therefore significant: Victor had remained in police custody for approximately two weeks despite attempts by his family to secure his release; RULAAC contacted the officer handling the case and questioned the prolonged detention; the officer did not explain the legal basis for the continued detention; and shortly afterwards the family was abruptly informed that Victor was being taken to court, without sufficient advance notice to secure legal representation before the arraignment and plea.
The Five-Count Charge
On 3 September 2026, Victor was arraigned before the Magistrate Court of Imo State in the Owerri Magisterial District in Charge No. OW/1418____/C/2026, with the Commissioner of Police, Imo State, as complainant.
The charge identifies him as Mr. Ude Chikadibia Mastertruth, male, aged 33 years.
Five counts were brought under Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended in 2024.
The first count concerns alleged threatening communications to Magistrate Akuna Opara.
Counts II to V arise principally from social media publications allegedly made by Victor concerning the Magistrate, including statements questioning her professional integrity and making allegations concerning her relationship with Apostle Love Judah.
Remand in Correctional Custody
Following the arraignment and taking of Victor’s plea, the Magistrate reportedly stated that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant him bail and ordered that he be remanded in correctional custody.
The timing has created an additional difficulty. The courts are presently on annual vacation, with regular court sittings expected to resume in October 2026.
The practical consequence is that a man who had already spent approximately two weeks in police custody without bail was transferred into correctional custody under a remand order made by a court said to lack jurisdiction to grant him bail.
Serious Questions Raised by the Sequence of Events
The chronology raises serious questions about the conduct and purpose of the police investigation and prosecution.
The sudden decision to arraign Victor immediately after RULAAC questioned the Police about his prolonged detention reasonably calls for an explanation. Given that the officer handling the matter did not explain why Victor had remained in custody for approximately two weeks, the timing creates an appearance that the hurried arraignment may have been a face-saving or damage-control response to external scrutiny of an already prolonged detention.
There is an even more serious issue requiring independent examination.
The complainant in the allegations underlying the charges is a serving Magistrate. Victor’s father alleges that the dispute originated from a private disagreement involving the Magistrate, Apostle Love Judah and Victor’s family. The Police subsequently arrested Victor in Abuja, transported him to Imo State, detained him for approximately two weeks despite efforts to secure police bail and, immediately after RULAAC began questioning that detention, hurriedly took him before a Magistrate Court without sufficient notice to enable his family to arrange representation before his plea was taken.
The court then reportedly stated that it lacked jurisdiction to grant bail but nevertheless remanded him in correctional custody at a time when the courts were proceeding on vacation.
Taken together, these circumstances create a disturbing appearance that police powers may have been deployed in furtherance of what originated as a private dispute and that the criminal process may have been used punitively against the defendant.
It would, however, require further evidence to establish conclusively that the Police were deliberately used by the Magistrate to settle personal scores. What can presently be said is that the chronology provides reasonable grounds for that concern and warrants independent scrutiny.
In particular, the Police should explain:
1. The legal basis upon which Victor was detained from 20 August until 3 September 2026 and whether any valid remand order existed during that period.
2. Why repeated efforts to secure police bail were unsuccessful.
3. Why the decision to arraign him was taken immediately after RULAAC questioned the prolonged detention.
4. Why the family was given so little notice of the arraignment that counsel arrived only after Victor’s plea had already been taken and a remand order made.
5. Why the defendant was brought before a court that reportedly considered itself without jurisdiction to grant him bail.
6. Whether the Police independently investigated the allegations or merely acted upon the complaint of a serving judicial officer involved in an underlying private dispute.
7. Whether the alleged threatening communications and social media publications were properly investigated and subjected to an independent legal assessment before criminal charges were filed.
Current Position and Need for Urgent Intervention*
Victor is presently in correctional custody.
Beyond the substantive allegations against him – which should ultimately be determined according to law and evidence – the immediate human-rights and due-process concerns are substantial.
The allegations against Victor do not extinguish his constitutional rights to personal liberty, access to counsel, fair hearing and due process. Nor should criminal process become an instrument for punishment before conviction or for settling private disputes.
The immediate priority should therefore be to obtain and review the complete case file, including any remand orders authorising the period of police detention; examine the competence of the five-count charge; determine the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court; and urgently approach a court of competent jurisdiction, including a vacation court where available, for appropriate relief and bail.
The circumstances surrounding Victor’s arrest, approximately two-week police detention, hurried arraignment following RULAAC’s intervention, absence of counsel when his plea was taken, and subsequent remand also merit independent investigation to determine whether there was an abuse of police or judicial process.
Leave a Reply