Mike Ozekhome’s Likely Legal Defence to the Charges Against Him.
The recent criminal charges filed against Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, present a severe allegation that demands a robust and clear defence. His lawyers will contend that the prosecution’s case, while serious on its face, is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts, an overextension of Nigerian law, and a disregard for key legal principles. He will outline the core pillars of his defence as follows:
Count-by-Count Rebuttal: Deconstructing the Allegations
The prosecution’s case hinges on three distinct charges. He will address each individually.
1. Count One: Fraudulent Receipt of Property (Contrary to Section 13, Corrupt Practices Act, 2000)
The Charge: That Chief Ozekhome received a London property from “Mr. Shani Tali,” knowing it constituted a felony.
His Defence: Lack of Mens Rea (Criminal Intent) and Lawful Consideration.
(a). Good Faith Belief: Chief Ozekhome’s consistent position will be that the property was a legitimate gift from his long-standing client and friend, the late General Jeremiah Useni, in gratitude for substantial legal services rendered. This includes handling General Useni’s 2019 governorship election petition through multiple appellate courts. A gift for professional services, even if from a politically exposed person, is not inherently criminal.
(b). Absence of “Felonious” Knowledge: The prosecution must prove he knew the property was obtained through a felony. Chief Ozekhome had no such knowledge. He dealt with individuals presented to him as “Shani Tali,” acting on instructions he believed originated from his client, General Useni. His mens rea is absent.
2. Count Two: Forgery (Making a False Document – Passport A07535463)
The Charge: That Chief Ozekhome personally created a false Nigerian passport to support his ownership claim.
His Defence: The Prosecution Has the Wrong Man:
(a). No Evidence of Manufacture: There is not a shred of evidence linking Chief Ozekhome to the physical creation or data superimposition on the passport booklet. As the UK Tribunal itself noted, the fraudulent identity documents were created “with the connivance of corrupt Nigerian officials”.
(a). Reliance on Client Documents: A lawyer is not a forensic document examiner. He received what appeared to be a Nigerian passport from a client. To criminally charge him for the alleged acts of corrupt officials within the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) or Immigration Service is a profound miscarriage of justice.
3. Count Three: Using a Forged Document as Genuine
The Charge: That he dishonestly used the false passport, knowing it was false.
His Defence: Lack of Knowledge and Reasonable Reliance.
(a) “Reason to Believe”: The charge requires he had “reason to believe” the document was false. As a Senior Advocate receiving documents from a client he had represented for over two decades, he had no objective reason to doubt their authenticity at the time of submission to the UK Tribunal. The alleged irregularities (superimposed data) were technical matters not apparent to a layperson or lawyer without forensic analysis.
(b) Purpose of Use: The passport was presented to a UK property tribunal as part of a claim of beneficial ownership—a civil proceeding. This is distinct from a criminal intent to defraud a financial institution or government.
The Foundational Flaw: Challenging the Core Narrative:
The prosecution’s entire theory rests on the UK Tribunal’s finding that “Tali Shani” was fictitious. Ozekhome does not dispute this finding. However, he fundamentally disputes its application to criminalise Chief Ozekhome. Note further:
(a) Client Confidentiality and Instructions: A lawyer acts on the instructions of their client. General Useni, a complex figure known to use alternative identities for asset holding as confirmed by courts in Jersey, instructed Chief Ozekhome through intermediaries. The lawyer’s duty is to advance his client’s lawful interests based on the instructions and documents provided, not to conduct a private investigation into his client’s pseudonyms.
(b) The True Source: A Gift from Useni: The defence is not that “Shani Tali” was real, but that the beneficial interest in the property was always General Useni’s, and it was Useni who gifted it. This aligns with General Useni’s own video testimony that he owned the property, and with Chief Ozekhome’s explanation that it was given to offset significant unpaid legal fees. The prosecution has conflated the nominal holder of the title with the source of the gift.
Jurisdictional Overreach and Procedural Concerns:
Extraterritorial Overreach: Charging a Nigerian in Nigeria for receiving a gift of property physically located in the United Kingdom stretches the intended scope of the Corrupt Practices Act. The alleged “act constituting a felony” (forgery of a passport) occurred in Nigeria, but its tenuous link to a property transfer in the UK is being used to construct a secondary offence. This is a novel and questionable use of the law.
Procedural Irregularity: Chief Ozekhome has stated he learned of the charges through the media, not formal service, calling into question the prosecution’s adherence to due process. This “media trial” prejudices public opinion and undermines the fairness of the judicial process.
Conclusion: A Defence of Law and Principle:
Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, is a respected member of the Bar with a decades-long record of service. This case attempts to criminalise a civil property dispute and lawyer-client dealings based on the fraudulent actions of third parties. The defence will demonstrate that there was no criminal intent, no personal forgery, and no dishonest knowledge. He will be confident that the court will see these charges for what they are: an unsustainable overreach that fails to distinguish between the alleged misconduct of state officials and the legitimate, good-faith actions of a legal practitioner acting for his client.
NOTE: This article is a hypothetical legal defence by Eculaw Media Group based on publicly reported facts and statements. It does not constitute formal legal advice to Ozekhome or anyone else.
