The last may not have been heard on the London Court judgement that indicted a Nigerian senior lawyer and human rights activist, Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome SAN as a civil society group, Justice Reform Project(JRP)  files a petition before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) seeking to him to answer allegations professional misconduct.

Ozekhome is not alone. Similar petitions were also filed against his son, Osilama Mike Ozekhome, Kingsley Efemuai, a London based lawyer, and Mohammed Edewor.

Joined with JRP as petitioners are three Nigerian lawyers, Charles Adeyemi Candide-Johnson SAN, Dr Babatunde Ajibade SAN, Babajide Ogundipe. The petition was filed at the LPDC on October 27, 2025.

A London Property Tribunal Judge, Ewan Paton had on  September 11, 2025 indicted Ozekhome and others in a property dispute owned by a Nigerian former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the late General Jeremiah Useni which Ozekhome claimed was transferred to him by one Mr Thali Shani. The property is located at 79 Randall Avenue, North London. The senior lawyer claimed that the property was a gift of gratitude to him by the client due to handling several cases for him.

However, an objection was lodged by a party claiming to be “Ms Tali Shani,” who asserted she was the rightful registered proprietor. This competing claim triggered a tribunal investigation that would ultimately reveal a more complex situation than initially apparent. What followed was a legal drama that exposed layers of questionable documentation, conflicting testimonies, and allegations of identity fabrication that would eventually draw the attention of Nigerian federal authorities and anti-corruption agencies.

Concluding that the entire case was built on “forgery and deception,” the tribunal struck out the claims, describing them as an abuse of judicial process.

The tribunal held that the property, registered in 1993 under the name “Tali Shani,” was in fact secretly purchased by the late General Jeremiah Useni, a powerful ally of Sani Abacha and former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.

The court ruled that the case before it was built on “a network of fraud, impersonation, and forged documents.” It found that Mr Ozekhome’s claim that the house was gifted to him in 2021 by one “Mr Shani” in gratitude for legal services worth N100 million was fabricated.

The judge described the lawyer’s defence, supported by his son, as “a contrived story… invented in an attempt to provide a plausible reason” for the transfer.

Judge Paton concluded that the supposed Ms Shani “was never a real living person” and that her documents were deliberately fabricated with the connivance of corrupt Nigerian officials.

“The entire case was built on forgery and deception,” the judge said, before ruling that the property remained part of Mr Useni’s estate, now subject to probate. He therefore struck out the case.

PARTICULARS OF MISCONDUCT

JRP, a non- profit organization is a coalition of Nigerians across the legal profession, civil society, and general public who are Stakeholders in the Justice system, filed the petition before the LPDC with the belief that Ozekhome and his crew contravene the rules of professional conduct.

The petition stated:

Based on the foregoing findings, the Applicants respectfully submit that Chief Ozekhome failed to act with dignity and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute. In particular terms, Chief Ozekhome breached the following provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (the rules)

3.1.1 Rule 1. which provides that “a lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner

3.1.2.Chief Ozekhome failed to maintain a high standard of professional conduct and engages in conduct unbecoming of a legal practitioner when the  Tribunal found that the statement in Box 8 of the TRI(transfer) form to the effect that the transfer was not for money or anything of monetary value was made so the purported transfer would be free from stamp duty land tax – a dishonourable act of tax evasion, which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner.

3.1.3 Chief Ozekhome contravene rule 1 when he pursued false, fraudulent and unwarranted claims that lacked a genuine basis in law and fact. The Tribunal found it strange that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (equivalent of King’s Counsel) was incurious about the facts surrounding the ownership of the property and the unrealistic claims of ownership by Mr Tali Shani as put forward by both of them.

3.1.4 These claims were completely contradicted by General Useni, who was called as a witness by Chief Ozekhome when he testified that the property at 79 Randall Avenue belonged to him. This raised a strong presumption that General Useni’s purported written statements ( and by extension, those  of other witnesses for Chief Ozekhome) were false statements written and fabricated by Chief Ozekhome. This also begs the question of whether the person posing as Mr Tali Shani, tendered by Chief Ozekhome as his witness, was an impostor – another fake Tali Shani. This accounts for the reason for Mr Walsh’s professional embarrassment and the withdrawal of his representation for Chief Ozekhome( see paras 42-47 of the judgement). Despite these facts, Chief Ozekhome persisted in his pursuit of the concocted claims, thereby making it improbable that he was not the mastermind of the unlawful scheme/conduct, or at least, that he participated therein with full knowledge.

31.5 Additionally , Chief  Ozekhome was in further breach of rule 1 when the Tribunal found the evidence given by him and by his witnesses on the issue of consideration given for the transfer of the property to him was an “invention and contrivance”(see para. 206 of judgement). This is tantamount to a finding of the crime of perjury committed by them- a finding that debased not just Chief Ozekhome and the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria that he holds, but the Nigerian legal profession as a whole.

3.1.6Chief Ozekhome advanced a case which the Tribunal found to be false and in so doing, he attempted to mislead the Tribunal and subvert the cause of justice when he, as an officer of the law, is charged with the duty aiding the administration of justice. Contrary to Chief Ozekhome’s case,  The Tribunal found trial the property belonged to General Useni and that Mr. Tali Shani was ‘simply a vehicle or conduit by which General Useni tried to transfer to the Respondent a property previously registered by him in the    false name “Tali’ Shani” in 1993.” (See para. 207 of the Judgment). This amounts to the crime of impersonation, and it was dishonorable of Chief Ozekhome, an officer of the law, to have actively participated in this.

3.1.7. This unworthy conduct is particularly grave considering the rank of Chief Ozekhome as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. It is difficult to give Chief Ozekhome the benefit of the doubt by accepting that he was unaware of the scheme if one considers how passionately he advanced the claims of Mr Tali Shani, to the extent that the Tribunal was convinced that he wrote the witness statement of Mr Akeem Johnson, the contents of which peddled the same claims(see para 187, line 3 of the judgement).

Given the foreign nature of this scandal, it has had an immeasurably negative impact on the Nigerian legal profession, now painted in a bad light in its entirety on the global stage.

The applicant as a non-profit organization made up of Nigerians across the Legal profession, Civil Society, and the General Public who are stakeholders in the justice system and the 2th— 4th applicants are deeply concerned members of the Nigerian legal profession strongly believe that Chief Ozekhome’s conduct contravene the foregoing  provision of the’ Rules of Professional Conduct thereby amounting to professional misconduct in line with Rule 74( 1) of the Rules.

RELIEFS SOUGHT

The Applicants urge the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) to invoke its powers under Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 to:

1. Investigate the conduct of the Respondent. Chief Mike Ozekhome. and

2. Impose the appropriate sanction if he is found guilty of infamous conduct.

CONCLUSION

5.1. It is the hope of the Applicants that the Committee would perform its statutory duty of maintaining discipline in the profession.

Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com