Bizplus Consulting Services Limited has petitioned President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, seeking an independent investigation into the conduct of the Director of Enforcement of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr. Chukwuemeka Tony Ubani, over alleged contradictory official representations surrounding the enforcement of a judgment against the Benue State Government.
The company also asked the President to withhold clearance for Ubani’s proposed appointment to the Bench pending the resolution of what it described as serious questions concerning administrative integrity, candour, accountability and suitability for judicial office.
The petition, dated October 19, 2026, was submitted through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), with an acknowledgment indicating receipt on October 20, 2026. A copy was also addressed to the Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
The petition was signed by the Group Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Bizplus Consulting Services Limited, Dr. Maurice Ibe, and concerned Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3693/2025, Bizplus Consulting Services Ltd & Anor. v. Government of Benue State & Anor.
According to the company, the complaint arose from alleged inconsistencies in the official actions and representations of Ubani concerning the execution of a judgment and Garnishee Order Absolute obtained in its favour.
Bizplus maintained that its petition was not intended to invite the President to determine the substantive legal issues arising from the litigation but to draw attention to alleged administrative contradictions requiring investigation before Ubani could be considered for judicial appointment.
“We do not invite the Executive Arm of Government to resolve substantive legal controversies or determine the definitive impact of intermediate orders issued by the Court of Appeal,” the company stated.
It explained that its concern centred on the conflicting official representations allegedly made by the Director of Enforcement in the discharge of his duties and the implications of those actions for the integrity of approvals granted within the FCT judicial hierarchy.
The company specifically relied on Section 256(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provides for the appointment of judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.
Bizplus argued that the President, as the constitutional appointing authority, should be informed of any unresolved administrative integrity concerns involving an individual being considered for elevation to judicial office.
Giving the background to the dispute, the company stated that it was the judgment creditor in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3693/2025.
It explained that on December 4, 2025, the High Court of the FCT granted a Garnishee Order Absolute in its favour, bringing the garnishee proceedings to a conclusion.
According to the petition, the court subsequently issued a Writ or Warrant of Execution on December 5, 2025, to facilitate enforcement of the judgment.
However, on December 8, 2025, during subsequent proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, the appellate court directed the parties to “maintain the status quo.”
Bizplus acknowledged that the precise legal effect of the appellate court’s order remained a matter for judicial determination.
“The precise legal effect of that status quo order remains an issue for the competent court to settle,” the company maintained.
It nevertheless argued that the unresolved legal controversy did not prevent an independent examination of the administrative processes and official representations surrounding the attempted enforcement.
The company proceeded to explain what it described as the established administrative procedure governing the execution of judgments within the High Court of the FCT.
According to Bizplus, the Director of Enforcement is required to review the relevant case file and formally recommend it to the Chief Judge of the FCT for execution clearance.
The company stated that the Chief Judge must subsequently review the recommendation and append formal written approval before the Director of Enforcement can proceed with the execution process.
It maintained that the Director’s authority to take subsequent enforcement steps depends on the existence of that administrative approval.
On that basis, Bizplus argued that the official actions taken by Ubani on May 4, 2026, gave rise to a presumption that the Chief Judge had already examined the case file and authorised the execution.
“The Director was not acting in a vacuum; he was executing a mandate activated by the head of the FCT Judiciary,” the company stated.
The petition identified a formal letter dated May 4, 2026, allegedly issued by Ubani in his official capacity as Director of Enforcement.
The letter, according to Bizplus, concerned the proposed enforcement of the judgment in the case involving the company and the Benue State Government.
The company alleged that the correspondence represented that Ubani was acting under direct administrative authority and that no pending adverse application or legal impediment prevented the execution of the judgment.
It further stated that the enforcement exercise was scheduled to commence on May 5, 2026.
Bizplus contended that those representations were relevant to determining whether the Director had obtained the required administrative clearance and whether his subsequent conduct was consistent with that authority.
The company further disclosed that an enforcement exercise was attempted at the premises of United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) on September 4, 2026.
According to the petition, the bank resisted the execution and relied on the Court of Appeal’s December 8, 2025, status quo order as justification for withholding the judgment sum.
UBA, according to the company’s account, maintained that the appellate order prevented the release of the funds pending the resolution of the legal issues arising from the proceedings.
The enforcement exercise was consequently suspended while the competing legal positions were considered.
Bizplus maintained that the circumstances surrounding the attempted execution raised questions about the relationship between the earlier administrative authorisation and the subsequent position attributed to the Director of Enforcement.
The company questioned whether any subsequent disclaimer or withdrawal of authorisation was consistent with the original approval process and whether the relevant judicial administrative authorities had been properly informed.
It argued that the issue required examination of the official case file, correspondence and administrative records rather than assumptions about the legality of the enforcement exercise.
The petitioner further maintained that the matter raised broader concerns about accountability within the judicial administrative structure, particularly where an officer being considered for appointment to the Bench was alleged to have made inconsistent official representations.
Describing the complaint as a matter requiring attention before any judicial elevation, Bizplus stated:
“This petition serves as a critical integrity alert prior to the final exercise of your appointing authority.”
The company argued that candidates for judicial appointment must demonstrate integrity, transparency, professional ethics and respect for established administrative procedures.
It maintained that any unresolved allegation concerning the conduct of a senior judicial administrative officer should be properly examined before a final appointment decision is made.
According to Bizplus, the appointment of judges carries substantial public responsibility and requires confidence in the character and professional conduct of those selected.
It therefore urged President Tinubu, through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, to direct a comprehensive background and administrative integrity investigation into the matter.
In its specific requests, Bizplus asked for an independent administrative investigation into the records, correspondence and official conduct of Ubani concerning Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3693/2025.
The company requested a detailed audit of the enforcement case file to establish whether the Chief Judge of the FCT granted formal approval for the execution.
It asked that investigators determine the precise date and terms of any approval and whether the Director’s subsequent actions were consistent with the authority granted.
Bizplus further sought clarification of whether any subsequent oral or written communication concerning the September 4, 2026, enforcement exercise had been properly authorised.
Bizplus Petition Against FCT High Court Enforcement Director Ubani,
The company also requested that any relevant communications involving UBA officials or counsel representing the Benue State Government be examined to establish the circumstances surrounding the suspension of the enforcement exercise.
It maintained that the investigation should determine whether any official action or representation contradicted the established administrative procedure or undermined the authority of the judicial hierarchy.
Beyond the proposed investigation, Bizplus specifically asked President Tinubu to withhold executive clearance for Ubani’s judicial appointment until the issues raised in the petition had been resolved.
It requested that the petition be forwarded to the State Security Service (SSS) and the National Judicial Council for consideration in connection with his clearance and appointment process.
The company urged that the relevant authorities ensure that Ubani’s security clearance and appointment process were suspended pending the outcome of the administrative investigation.
Bizplus further requested that any established impropriety, duplicity or ethical misconduct be referred to the appropriate disciplinary authority.
It identified the Federal Civil Service Commission and the relevant Judicial Service Committee among the institutions that could be considered for disciplinary or institutional review, depending on the findings and applicable jurisdiction.
The company emphasised that the requested measures were intended to protect the integrity of the judicial appointment process and ensure accountability in the administration of court judgments.
In concluding the petition, Bizplus maintained that its complaint was motivated by concerns about institutional accountability rather than personal hostility towards Ubani.
“This Petition is brought without malice, in good faith, and with the sole objective of protecting the sanctity of institutional execution, administrative accountability, and the integrity of the public service,” it stated.
The company further maintained that the documentary issues surrounding the established administrative procedure, the official correspondence of May 4, 2026, and the events of September 4, 2026, required transparency before an individual could be elevated to a position of judicial trust.
It expressed willingness to provide further documents or testimony to assist any investigation arising from the petition.
The petition identified three supporting annexures, comprising a copy of the May 4, 2026, official correspondence attributed to Ubani, the Garnishee Order Absolute dated December 4, 2025, and the Writ or Warrant of Execution dated December 5, 2025.
Post Title: “Judicial Appointment Requires Unimpeachable Character” — Bizplus Petitions Tinubu Against FCT High Court Enforcement Director Ubani Over Alleged Administrative Misconduct By Naijaonpoint.