ICPC Reacts to Reports of Arrest, Investigation of Federal High Court Judge James Omotosho

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has denied claims circulating online that it arrested or is investigating Federal High Court judge James Omotosho.

In a statement released Tuesday, ICPC spokesperson John Odey said a video making the allegation on social media is false and misleading.

According to the commission, it has neither invited nor arrested Justice Omotosho in connection with any investigation.

“The claim contained in the video is entirely untrue and intended to spread mischief and mislead members of the public,” the statement said. “ICPC wishes to clarify that it has neither arrested nor invited Justice James Omotosho in relation to any investigation.”

The commission also stated that it is not conducting any investigation involving the judge.

ICPC further explained that it does not have the mandate to investigate serving judicial officers. It reaffirmed its respect for the judiciary and urged the public to avoid sharing unverified information that could damage reputations or create unnecessary public concern.

The agency added that it remains committed to professionalism and due process in carrying out its responsibilities.

Justice Omotosho serves at the Abuja division of the Federal High Court and has handled several high-profile cases. He gained national attention in November when he sentenced Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment.

The rumours about his alleged arrest surfaced amid ongoing scrutiny of members of the judiciary. The National Judicial Council (NJC) is currently reviewing allegations involving some senior judges.

In a separate development, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) recently invited Federal High Court Chief Judge John Tsoho over allegations that he failed to declare certain bank accounts as required by law. The court confirmed the invitation and said Tsoho would cooperate with the bureau.

However, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) criticised the move, arguing that established judicial precedent requires that any disciplinary action against a judge first be handled by the NJC before other agencies can investigate or prosecute.