The Anambra State Government has concluded its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct made against the Governor’s Security Adviser, Ken Emeakayi, declaring the claims “false and misleading.”
The allegations were raised by human rights lawyer and public commentator, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, who accused Emeakayi of having an improper relationship with Mrs. Mmasi Nwangwu, the wife of Chukwudozie Nwangwu, also known as “Akwa Okuko Tiwaraki,” a detained native doctor.
The claims sparked public debate, particularly in connection with the prosecution and conviction of Nwangwu.
In a statement issued on Tuesday by the governor’s media aide, Mazi Ejimofor Opara, the state government said a fact-finding committee set up to investigate the matter submitted its report on May 11. The committee reportedly exonerated the security adviser after reviewing evidence from all relevant parties.
According to the government, the committee was chaired by the Attorney-General of Anambra State, Tobechukwu Nweke, SAN, and included senior officials from the Ministry of Justice. It stated that testimonies were obtained from Emeakayi, Mrs. Nwangwu, and legal representatives connected to the case. The panel also claimed it repeatedly invited Prof. Odinkalu to present evidence or clarify his allegations, but he did not respond to the invitations.
After examining the submissions, the committee concluded that there was no evidence of any personal or inappropriate relationship between Emeakayi and Mrs. Nwangwu.
The state government reaffirmed its commitment to due process and emphasized the need to protect public officials from unverified accusations.
However, Prof. Odinkalu rejected the committee’s findings, describing the report as an “amateur cover-up.” In a social media response, he insisted that his allegations remained valid and said the investigation lacked transparency.
Odinkalu also claimed he received WhatsApp messages from the Attorney-General requesting disclosure of his sources, but he questioned the authenticity and procedure of the communication. He argued that the inquiry process did not clearly outline its legal authority or terms of reference and criticized what he described as an informal approach to a serious allegation.
He maintained that he stood by his claims despite the government’s conclusion.
