Court remands two over alleged cyberbullying of Ezeemo’s wife

By Our Reporter

A Magistrate Court in Awka, Anambra State has remanded two sisters, Vivian Igboanusi and Chioma Igboanusi, in a correctional facility over allegations of cyberbullying and defamation against Uju Ezeemo, an Onitsha-based legal practitioner.

The arraignment of the suspects, who are natives of Isseke in Ihiala LGA on Wednesday, followed the circulation of a trending video in which a voice purported to be that of one of the suspects made defamatory statements about Mrs. Ezeemo who had visited her husband’s property in Udoka Estate to act as a pointer to a bailiff of the Magistrate court.

The said residence in Udoka is the property of Chief Ezeemo, reportedly rented out to the Labour Party. The property, alongside others, are managed by Ezeemo’s wife, who the said video had captured being assaulted.

During proceedings, Prosecuting Counsel, J. O. Obochi alleged that Vivian, a former staff of Chief Godwin Ezeemo, and her sister/co-accused, Chioma, conspired on June 3, 2026 to commit assault and cyberbullying. 

Obochi told the court that the defendants recorded and circulated the defamatory content on Facebook, X, and other social media platforms to injure Uju’s image and reputation — an offense punishable under the law. He further stated that while the complainant was simply at the residence to act as a pointer to the court’s bailiff, the suspects allegedly assaulted her, held her hostage, seized her phone, and used their own phone to record the scene.

The Defense Counsel, P. C. Onuya admitted that the defendants posted defamatory content on social media and applied for bail pursuant to Section 101 of the Anambra State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2026. He submitted that the offenses are bailable in nature, and urged the court to grant them bail as the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man.

Presiding Magistrate, Nonyelum Anyaegbunam, emphasised the constitutional protections governing remand proceedings, noting that while bail could be considered, the ongoing remand must continue.

The court adjourned the case to 28 July, 2026, for further hearing. Bail was not granted, despite a late appeal by the defense counsel for the release of Chioma on ground of not being the main culprit was struck out by the presiding magistrate.

Meanwhile, the complainant, Barr Uju, earlier narrated to journalists her ordeal on the day of the incident, stating that she only went to the property to show a court bailiff the location of her husband’s building in Udoka Estate for service of a court order.

“It was early last week. A bailiff was given court processes to serve the occupants of my husband’s building in Udoka Estate. He could not locate the place and pleaded with me to show him, since I manage my husband’s property.

“The building had been rented to the Labour Party, but because they were in arrears, I filed processes in court for the bailiff to serve them. On bailiff’s request to accompany him for directions, I arrived at the property ahead of the bailiff. On getting there, I met a woman operating a small kiosk at the gate. When I questioned her presence, she claimed the Labour Party authorized it. I called the Party Chairman, who denied authorizing anyone. I sat on her chair and tried to inform her that her occupation was illegal. While I was on the phone with the bailiff, she went into a security post to make a secret call. Minutes later, a suspended staff member of my husband arrived in a keke, forcefully seized my mobile phone, and repeatedly smashed it on the ground. 

“When she realized I would not fight back, she began hitting me with objects and recording videos of me while making defamatory utterances. After about four hours, she returned my phone around 6:00 p.m. I immediately called the police, but the suspects had fled before they arrived. I was later informed that the video had been uploaded online. My efforts to have the videos deleted were futile as they had already gone viral before their arrest.”

On the suspect’s claim in the viral video of being owed outstanding salaries, Uju said her husband’s firms did not owe the suspect any salary, noting that she had been suspended before the incident. As the manager of her husband’s properties, she added that her presence at the residence may have caused the suspect to assume the visit was for eviction, particularly since the suspect had earlier been relieved of her duties.

“Information I have is that throughout her stay, she was regularly paid until her suspension due to illegalities in handling the company’s affairs. On that basis, she was suspended. She took away the company’s official car and property including a microwave, a gas cooker, kitchen utensils, and chairs. Even during a search of her residence, the chairs were found there. Since she started working, she has occupied three rooms in a boys’ quarters. To date, no one has pursued her. She therefore acted out of malice and jealousy. We did not approach her or speak to her.

“We paid her regularly and can prove it, as the payments were made into her bank account. If she knew she was not being paid, she would have sued the company before now,” Uju narrated.

Corroborating, the Magistrate Court Bailiff, Mr. Francis Nweje told newsmen that he was grateful he was not present during the incident. He stated that he would have been assaulted alongside Mrs. Ezeemo had he gone with her.

“I was at Udoka Estate to serve a court process. On my way, I called Barr. Uju Ezeemo to guide me to the property. On arrival, I tried reaching her for directions, but her phone became unreachable. I sent a text and waited until 5:00 p.m., but got no response. I then left in frustration. Days later, she called to inform me of what had happened,” he said.

Effort made to get the reactions of the suspects and their defense counsel proved futile as all declined interviews.