How Ejiofor, Ozekhome’s failure to challenge FG’s motion cost Nnamdi Kanu’s freedom – Defence team 

Nnamdi Kanu’s defence team has blamed his travails on the failure of his former counsel, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, and Ifeanyi Ejiofor, to file a preliminary objection challenging the Nigerian government’s motion for a stay of execution of the October 13, 2022, Court of Appeal judgment that freed the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader.

The defence team made the assertion in a statement issued by Christopher Chidera, Esq., on Saturday.

It will be recalled that Kanu recently announced that Ejiofor no longer represents him and IPOB as legal counsel.

Ozekhome and Ejiofor were Kanu’s defence counsel in his terrorism trial before he decided to represent himself in court.

Shedding light on what transpired, Chidera, on behalf of the defence team, said Kanu was a free man after the Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him, having declared his rendition from Kenya illegal.

The lawyer said: “On October 13, 2022, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was a free man. The Court of Appeal had unanimously discharged him, declaring his extraordinary rendition from Kenya illegal and stripping the Federal High Court of jurisdiction. The charges were quashed. The case was over. Freedom was minutes away.

“Then came the betrayal—not from the government, which was expected to act lawlessly, but from the very lawyers paid to protect his liberty, Ifeanyi Ejiofor especially.

“When the Federal Government filed its irregular ‘civil stay of execution’ application, the defence team had one job: file a simple preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain it.

“They had the ammunition. The Court of Appeal had already become functus officio, having fully determined the criminal appeal. The Federal Government was in contempt of an extant court order refusing to release Kanu. The law was clear. Yet, Ifeanyi Ejiofor and Mike Ozekhome, SAN, failed to act.

“Instead of filing that jurisdictional challenge, what did they do? They responded to AGF Malami’s theatrics, filing counter-affidavits and debating the merits of the stay rather than striking at the heart of the matter: the court’s jurisdiction to even hear it.

“The result was catastrophic. The stay was granted. A new panel of the Court of Appeal—an entirely different panel—used civil procedure rules to nullify a criminal discharge. Kanu remained in DSS custody for 14 months without fresh charges.”

Chidera noted that the unchallenged stay of execution application paved the way for the Supreme Court to reverse Kanu’s discharge on December 15, 2023.

He expressed regret that Kanu was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment “on charges that had been quashed by a superior court.”

Explaining further, Chidera said when Kanu’s family demanded accountability, Ejiofor did not accept responsibility.

“Instead, he launched a smear campaign against Kanu’s brothers, poisoned relationships, and fed falsehoods to Kanu’s wife. He continues to attack his former client publicly while concealing his fundamental procedural failure.”

Frowning at the situation, the defence team said the rule of law demands transparency. It further stressed that the Kanu family, the legal profession and the Nigerian public deserve answers on the issue.

According to the defence team, what transpired was not a loss to a superior legal argument but “professional negligence that cost a man his freedom.”