ACTIVISM, THE PRICE OF CONSCIENCE, AND THE THEATRE OF PERSECUTION
When a State Puts History on Trial and Calls It Justice
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
v.
CHIEF MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN
Human rights activism has never been a gentleman’s pastime. It is, by its very nature, an inconvenient vocation, one that unsettles power, interrogates authority, and stubbornly refuses to genuflect when the State elects impunity over justice. Across jurisdictions and generations, history records a consistent pattern: those who insist on holding governments to account are rarely thanked; they are instead repaid with suspicion, vilification, and, more often than not, persecution carefully camouflaged as lawful scrutiny.
Nigeria is no exception.
From the grim era of military absolutism to our present, fragile democratic experiment, the country’s political evolution has been shaped, sometimes rescued, by men and women who dared to resist arbitrary power. During the pro-democracy struggles of the 1980s and 1990s, a constellation of courageous voices rose against Decrees, Edicts, detentions, and the violent hijack of the people’s mandate. Among them were individuals who would later ascend to the highest offices of the land, including President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who himself paid dearly through forced exile, harassment, and profound political sacrifice.
Standing shoulder to shoulder with such political actors were uncompromising legal sentinels, Gani Fawehinmi, Beko Ransome- Kuti,Olisa Agbakoba,Mike Ozekhome, Femi Falana, and a host of other activists who weaponised the law itself against tyranny and dictatorship. 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. Some died.Some went on exile. Some were maimed and many others were detained or imprisoned after questionable trials.
Gani Fawehinmi, of blessed memory, went further still. He challenged not only military juntas but, whenever conscience so demanded, even the Nigerian Bar Association itself, if he perceived a deviation from its foundational ethos. That was activism in its purest form: principled, solitary, and unyielding.
It is against this historical canvas that the present ordeal of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, must be situated and understood. He was one of the trail blazers of activism having co-founded the Civil Liberties Organization ( CLO) in 1987.
THE FALSE NARATIVE ABOUT THE LONDON TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT
Since the gravamen of the present charge traces its origin to the judgment of the United Kingdom First-Tier Tribunal concerning No. 79 Randall Avenue, London, it is both necessary and instructive, particularly for readers unfamiliar with that decision, to draw attention to its most salient findings. Some people deliberately skewed the narrative.
The dispute before the Tribunal arose from an objection to the registration of the property by Chief Ozekhome and Mr Tali Shani who had given it to him for legal services rendered for him and General J.T. Useni (of blessed memory) , purportedly raised on behalf of a phantom individual styled “Ms. Tani Shali.”( the Applicant). Chief Ozekhome was the Respondent.
At page 33, paragraph 123 of the judgment, the Tribunal completely trashed Ms Tali Shani’s case and false evidence against Ozekhome and held:
“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’.”
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.These findings were made against the Applicant, a fanthom not existent woman,and not against Ozekhome or his witness, a living man who testified before the Tribunal. Indeed, it was Ozekhome who who wrote to various government agencies which held these documents to be fake and forged.
Crucially, and fatally for the false narrative undertaken by Ozekhome’s haters and traducers, the Tribunal made a clear and unequivocal distinction between the fictitious Ms.Tani Shali who purported to be General Useni’s mistress so as to make false ownership claim of the property, and the real Mr. Tali Shani who duly gave evidence of ownership on behalf of Ozekhome ( the Respondent).
At paragraph 168, the Tribunal tellingly held:
“Unlike the fictitious ‘Ms. Tali Shani’, a man going by the name of Mr. Tali Shani exists and gave evidence before me in that name.A certified copy of an official Nigerian passport was produced both to the Land Registry and this Tribunal, stating that Mr Tali Shani was born on 2nd April 1973.I do not have the evidence, or any sufficient basis, to find that this document – unlike the poor and pitiful forgeries on the side of the “Applicant”….is forged, and I do not do so.”
It is therefore unfortunate that inspite of these clear findings, some people still deliberately twist this particular finding to impute forgery of the passport on Ozekhome, when ownership of same was claimed by a living person who gave evidence and was believed by the Tribunal.
Indeed,the Tribunal completely exonerated Chief Ozekhome of any wrongdoing when it further found, at paragraph 200, that:
“There is no question of this being some sort of attempt by the Respondent ( Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN) to steal the General’s property without his knowledge.”
It further found that General Useni indeed owned the property,albeit registered in a false name of Mr Tali Shani; and that Useni obviously desired to and indeed transferred it to Ozekhome using the name Tali Shani ( par 202). It also found that Ozekhome’s knowledge as regards ownership of the property through the title deeds only commenced in 2019,and not 1993 when it was first bought.
THE MOST REVEALING IRONY
I recall vividly the only occasion Chief Ozekhome was invited by the ICPC, an invitation he dutifully honoured. He was informed categorically that the Commission’s initial position was that no such human being as Tali Shani existed at all. That illusion is instantly shattered by the fact that the said Mr Tali Shani who is a breathing living individual gave evidence before the London Tribunal on June 11,2024,and also made statement before the EFCC which had actually detained and interviewed him before the sudden emergence of the the ICPC on the scene.
One would reasonably expect that a serious investigative body would have referred to its sister agency and not commenced another fresh investigation probably to “shine”.
Instead, in what can only be described as prosecutorial haste bordering on institutional embarrassment, the ICPC sprinted to court clutching a charge founded upon a premise already disproved by the findings of the London Tribunal.
One is tempted to ask, with measured sarcasm: was the investigation concluded before it began?
CONCLUSION: A CALL FOR SOBRIETY, NOT SENTIMENT
Against this overwhelming factual and judicial backdrop, the present prosecution appears less a quest for justice than an unfortunate misadventure in optics and reputational attrition against Ozekhome.
It is my firm, considered, and dispassionate view that this is precisely the type of case the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation would be well advised to urgently review and withdraw the charge from court.This would serve the public interest far better than persevering in a cause targeted at an individual.
Justice is not served by insisting on attempts at deliberately damaging Ozekhome’s high reputation and towering image.
The rule of law is not strengthened by vendetta.
And history is rarely kind to institutions that mistake persecution for prosecution.
This is my humble view.
SIGNED:
Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Esq. (KSC)
Dunu-Ezeugosinachi
28 January, 2026
