Ejiofor Blasts The Nigerian Gov’t Calls For End To Ozekhome’s Trial
“Justice is not served by deliberately damaging Ozekhome’s reputation and towering image,” he warned.
Renowned human rights lawyer, Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has raised serious concerns over the ongoing prosecution of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, describing it as a troubling example of persecution disguised as justice.
In a strongly worded social media post titled “Activism, the Price of Conscience, and the Theatre of Persecution,” Ejiofor placed Ozekhome’s ordeal within Nigeria’s long history of targeting outspoken defenders of human rights.
According to him, activism has never been a comfortable path, describing it as “an inconvenient vocation.”
“It unsettles power, interrogates authority, and refuses to bow when the State chooses impunity over justice,” Ejiofor wrote.
He recalled Nigeria’s dark military era, when courageous citizens resisted decrees, unlawful detentions, and stolen mandates. Many, he noted, paid with exile, imprisonment, physical harm, and even death.
Ejiofor named iconic legal activists such as Gani Fawehinmi, Beko Ransome-Kuti, Olisa Agbakoba, Femi Falana, and Mike Ozekhome as men who used the law as a weapon against tyranny.
He stressed “that was an era when activism was neither fashionable nor monetised; it was not curated for social media applause. It was costly. It was dangerous. And it was real”.
Ozekhome and the Roots of Activism
Ejiofor reminded the public that Chief Ozekhome was one of the pioneers of Nigeria’s human rights movement, having co-founded the Civil Liberties Organization (CLO) in 1987.
He argued that the current case against the senior advocate should be understood against this backdrop of long-standing resistance to injustice.
The London Tribunal Judgment Explained
Central to Ejiofor’s argument is the judgment of the United Kingdom First-Tier Tribunal concerning a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London. This property had been given it to Ozekhome for legal services rendered.
He accused some individuals of deliberately twisting the facts to paint Ozekhome in a negative light.
The dispute arose from an objection filed in the name of a supposed woman, “Ms Tani Shali,” who was presented as the property owner. However, the Tribunal completely dismantled her case.
In paragraph 123 of the judgment, the London court stated it believed “barely a word” of the evidence presented on her behalf and concluded that she was never a real person.
The Tribunal rejected claims that the applicant (Ms Tani Shali) could not appear before the tribunal because she suddenly died. It also rejected claims of her hospital treatment, and alleged purchase of the London property.
In paragraph 125, it described the documents linked to her identity as forged and deceptive. These included fake medical letters, a fraudulent death certificate, fabricated funeral notices, and false identity documents.
Ejiofor emphasised that all these findings were made against the fictitious “Ms Tani Shali,” not against Chief Ozekhome.
“In short, I believe barely a word of the documentary and oral evidence which has been put forward on behalf of the alleged Applicant (Ms Tani Shali). I do not accept that ‘she’ was ever a real living person. I do not accept that ‘she’ therefore died, whether in hospital or in a mysterious car accident on the road to Abuja. I certainly do not accept that ‘she’ purchased this property in London in 1993 in her ‘hey days’,” he included.
“The Tribunal went further. At paragraph 125, it found that: “A large number of documents in this case purportedly establishing the identity of Ms Tami Shani , have been produced or procured by forgery or deception”, including all identity documents, witness statements purportedly made by her and General Useni; fabricated medical letters, a fraudulent death certificate, and even a fictitious notice of her funeral and burial rites. They also included false identity documents, NIN, and ECOWAS Travel document,” the statement added.
The Real Tali Shani
The Tribunal made a clear distinction between the phantom woman and a real man, Mr Tali Shani, who testified in person.
In paragraph 168, it confirmed that Mr Tali Shani existed and produced a certified Nigerian passport.
Unlike the forged documents linked to the fictitious applicant, the court found no basis to label his passport as fake.
Ejiofor lamented that despite this clarity, some critics within Nigeria continued to twist the judgment to suggest forgery by Ozekhome.
Total Exoneration of Ozekhome
Most significantly, the Tribunal fully cleared Chief Ozekhome of wrongdoing.
In paragraph 200, it stated there was no attempt by Ozekhome to steal General J.T. Useni’s property.
The court further found that General Useni indeed owned the property and had transferred it to Ozekhome, even though it was registered under the name Tali Shani.
It also noted that Ozekhome only became aware of the title details in 2019, not when the property was first purchased in 1993.
The “Most Revealing Irony”
Ejiofor revealed that when Ozekhome was invited by the ICPC, the commission initially claimed that no such person as Tali Shani existed.
That claim, he said, collapsed when Mr Tali Shani appeared before the London Tribunal in June 2024 and had earlier been interviewed by the EFCC.
Rather than coordinate with sister agencies, Ejiofor accused the ICPC of rushing to court with charges based on a premise already disproved.
He described the move as prosecutorial haste bordering on institutional embarrassment.
“With measured sarcasm,” he asked: “Was the investigation concluded before it began?”
A Call for Withdrawal of Charges
Ejiofor concluded that, in light of the overwhelming judicial findings, the prosecution of Ozekhome appeared less like a pursuit of justice and more like a campaign of reputational damage.
He urged the Attorney-General of the Federation to urgently review and withdraw the case in the public interest.
“Justice is not served by deliberately damaging Ozekhome’s reputation and towering image,” he stated.
“The rule of law is not strengthened by vendetta.”
He warned that history rarely treats kindly institutions that confuse persecution with prosecution.
As the legal battle continues, Ejiofor’s intervention has reignited public debate over the treatment of activists in Nigeria.
To many observers, the case of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, is no longer just about property documents. It is another overwhelming evidence that Nigeria’s justice system does not protect conscience, rather it puts it on trial.
