The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja has directed relevant security agencies to commence a criminal investigation into a UK-based Nigerian radiographer, Immaculata Nkiruka Ikenwankwor, following findings of cyber harassment, threats to life, sexual assault and blackmail against her ex, a Legal Practitioner.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, 3rd June, 2026, the presiding judge, Honourable Justice O.A. Musa, ordered the court registry to transmit Certified True Copies of the Judgment and case files to investigative and prosecuting authorities within seven days.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira in aggravated damages, alongside a 10% post-judgment interest rate per annum.
In evaluating the scale of the aggravated damages to compensate the Applicant, the Court explicitly detailed a seven-point assessment criteria:
Justice Musa noted that the fundamental rights breach was not an isolated incident, stating:
“The Applicant was subjected to a sustained course of conduct involving threats to personal safety, covert recording of private communications, interference with dignity and autonomy, and coercive pressure through the threatened deployment of legal processes. The cumulative effect of these acts was to create an atmosphere of fear, insecurity, humiliation and emotional distress extending over a significant period.”
Justice Musa ruled that a standard restraining order was entirely insufficient to address the systemic risks exposed by the case. Declaring that “the stream of justice must flow into the regulatory spheres that license the Respondent,” the court ordered the formal transmission of the certified true copy of the judgment to:
In a scathing assessment of her professional standing, the court’s referral language stated:
“A practitioner in the medical imaging and radiation sciences is, by the very nature of their training, entrusted with human life, vulnerability, and the highest standards of public safety. The ethical codes governing a registered radiographer demand the absolute preservation of high moral character, emotional stability, and an unwavering commitment to doing no harm. The evidence accepted by this Court paints a picture that is absolutely opposed to these professional tenets.”
The judgment further warned that the safety of patients could not be guaranteed under the care of someone displaying such volatility, concluding with a direct challenge to the regulators:
“For a medical professional to meticulously formulate, repeat, and later attempt to justify an explicit roadmap to terminate a fellow human being’s life—by stabbing them to death in their sleep—constitutes an egregious departure from the minimum behavioural standards expected of a registered clinician. It indicates a volatile temperament and a severe ethical failure that directly calls into question the Respondent’s fitness to practice… The professional regulatory bodies are urged to determine whether an individual who legally binds her self-restraint from violence solely to ‘the fear of going to jail’ can safely remain on a register of trusted medical practitioners.”
Factual Findings of the Court
The court’s findings were established after an examination of extensive WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties in controversy. After reproducing EXHIBIT D in the judgment, the Court interpreted that piece of evidence in its judgment (particularly at pages 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28), thusly:
The Respondent is documented as having repeatedly demanded of the Applicant: “Have you thought of the fact you could be sleeping and get stabbed to death?” This is not a vague, ambiguous expression of anger, nor can it be dismissed as the standard, non-lethal exaggeration often spat out in moments of domestic friction. It is a highly specific, chillingly structured roadmap of violence. The Respondent meticulously couples a lethal mechanism—stabbing—with a condition of absolute human vulnerability: sleep. By targeting the Applicant at a time when his consciousness is suspended and his defenses are entirely neutralized, the Respondent manifested an intent to execute maximum harm with zero opportunity for the victim’s self-preservation. What elevates this statement from a reckless outburst to a credible, terrifying threat to life is the immediate, contemporaneous dialogue that followed. When the Applicant, attempted to test reality and offer a path for de-escalation by asking, “Threatening that you could take my life?”, the Respondent did not recant. The Respondent did not claim to have spoken in error. Instead, the Respondent doubled down, shouting, “I don’t care!” over and over. This repetition is of immense forensic value to this Court. It proves a conscious, deliberate ratification of the threat in real-time. It demonstrates a total indifference to the Applicant’s sudden fear and an outright abandonment of the sanctity of human life.
The Respondent is documented as having repeatedly demanded of the Applicant: “Have you thought of the fact you could be sleeping and get stabbed to death?” This is not a vague, ambiguous expression of anger, nor can it be dismissed as the standard, non-lethal exaggeration often spat out in moments of domestic friction. It is a highly specific, chillingly structured roadmap of violence. The Respondent meticulously couples a lethal mechanism—stabbing—with a condition of absolute human vulnerability: sleep. By targeting the Applicant at a time when his consciousness is suspended and his defenses are entirely neutralized, the Respondent manifested an intent to execute maximum harm with zero opportunity for the victim’s self-preservation. What elevates this statement from a reckless outburst to a credible, terrifying threat to life is the immediate, contemporaneous dialogue that followed. When the Applicant, attempted to test reality and offer a path for de-escalation by asking, “Threatening that you could take my life?”, the Respondent did not recant. The Respondent did not claim to have spoken in error. Instead, the Respondent doubled down, shouting, “I don’t care!” over and over. This repetition is of immense forensic value to this Court. It proves a conscious, deliberate ratification of the threat in real-time. It demonstrates a total indifference to the Applicant’s sudden fear and an outright abandonment of the sanctity of human life.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s own words expose the fragile barrier preventing this threat from becoming a physical reality. The Respondent stated: “But I don’t want to go to jail, because I am the only person my family has.” This Court must ask: what is keeping the Applicant alive? By the Respondent’s own clear admission, it is not moral restraint, it is not affection, and it is not respect for the law or human life. The sole retaining wall against a fatal assault is the Respondent’s calculated fear of state punishment and personal legal inconvenience. The Applicant’s life was effectively placed at the mercy of the Respondent’s ongoing, fluid risk assessment regarding jail time. This constitutes a severe, continuous, and existential threat to the Applicant’s right to life. No citizen of this country should have their survival dependent on an aggressor’s calculated fear of incarceration… The Respondent shifts seamlessly from blood-chilling threats to indifferent defiance, then to passive-aggressive gaslighting, and finally—when legally cornered by the Applicant’s unwavering stance—to a brief, compliant apology: “I’m sorry I said that in anger, there’s no justification and it will never happen again.“
While the Respondent may argue that this final apology cures the infraction, this Court views it with deep suspicion and serious concern. An apology given only when an aggressive strategy fails is a tactical compliance tool, not a guarantee of safety. The Respondent’s written admission that there is “no justification” for her words is a formal admission against interest under our laws of evidence under section 20 thereof. Interpreting section 20 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court stressed in Ajide v. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.12) 248, 260 that “Where there are admissions by a party against his interest such admissions will be admissible against the person.”
Further down the judgment, the Court concluded in this lucid language:
The conduct of the Respondent in the circumstances apparent on the face of EXHIBIT D is rather egregious and boggles the mind. Reference to the Applicant’s future implies leverage. The statement:
“You have a very beautiful future and I am sure you don’t want to ruin it.”