Why Nnamdi Kanu sacked Ifeanyi Ejiofor as counsel – Lawyer

A member of Nnamdi Kanu’s defense team, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has shed light on reasons behind Nnamdi Kanu’s decision to sack Ifeanyi Ejiofor as his counsel during his terrorism trial.

It will be recalled that Ejiofor was Kanu’s counsel in his trial before the Abuja Federal High Court until the IPOB leader decided to defend himself in the court presided by Justice James Omotosho.

Chidera, who is also a public affairs analyst, explained the reasons behind Kanu’s action in a statement on Tuesday.

He said, “As a legal practitioner and public affairs analyst committed to constitutional supremacy, fair hearing, and respect for court orders, I write on the circumstances surrounding the disengagement of Ifeanyi Ejiofor from Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team. With the appeal now before the Court of Appeal following conviction, the public should not be misled by distortions that conceal critical professional failures.”

Highlighting what he described as grave errors that prolonged Kanu’s illegal detention, Chidera said, “Mike Ozekhome served as lead counsel, with Ifeanyi Ejiofor as a key member of the team and personal attorney to Kanu. On 13 October 2022, the Court of Appeal delivered a discharge that finally terminated the criminal proceedings and possessed the legal incidents of an acquittal. It is a fundamental principle of Nigerian law that a civil stay of execution cannot override such a discharge.

“Despite this, the Federal Government, through Attorney-General Abubakar Malami, filed an irregular civil stay application. This application was entertained by the same court after it had become functus officio, having fully determined and exhausted its jurisdiction over the criminal appeal.

“The Federal Government’s refusal to obey the Court of Appeal’s discharge order amounted to contempt. The outcome was an unprecedented 14-month detention without fresh charge – a situation unheard of in Nigeria’s legal history.

“The legal team failed to file a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the illegal civil stay. This failure removed a potent procedural barrier. Had the jurisdictional foundation been properly contested, the court would have been compelled to determine whether it could lawfully grant relief to a party in contempt of an extant discharge order using an unknown civil process. Instead, the unchallenged stay was allowed to stand, paving the way for further proceedings.

“Kanu then became the subject of one of the most extraordinary episodes in Nigerian judicial history: a conviction entered by a lower court on counts previously quashed and discharged by a superior appellate court. This legal anomaly was made possible by the team’s failure to file the Preliminary Objection against Malami’s illegal stay before the functus officio court. That omission proved fatal.”

Chidera further pointed to what he described as character assassination allegedly launched against Kanu’s family members.

The statement said, “Kanu’s brothers, who have stood loyally and sacrificially by him, demanded accountability for these lapses. They called for the resignation of those responsible. Rather than accept responsibility, Ifeanyi Ejiofor responded with a vicious campaign of spurious and malicious allegations against the brothers. His aim was clear: to isolate Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and damage the family that has remained steadfast in his defence.

“Ejiofor poisoned relationships by feeding falsehoods to Kanu’s wife, Uchechi Kanu, and members of the dissolved Kuje-appointed 3rd Administration. Social media overflowed with wild claims and character assassination, while the central reason for his sacking – the team’s failure to mount a proper jurisdictional challenge to the illegal stay – was deliberately concealed.

“To this day, Ejiofor continues to issue public attacks on his former client without the basic decency to disclose these fundamental shortcomings. This behaviour is morally reprehensible and falls far short of the ethical standards required of legal practitioners.”

Demanding truth and accountability, Chidera added, “The appeal currently before the Court of Appeal raises serious questions of jurisdictional nullity, fair hearing, and obedience to appellate orders. At this critical stage, the public must see beyond personal vendettas. The failure to challenge the illegal civil stay at its roots enabled a chain of events that should never have occurred.

“Ifeanyi Ejiofor owes the Kanu family, the legal profession, and the Nigerian public a candid explanation. Smearing the brothers cannot erase the record. Families have every right to demand competence and accountability from counsel entrusted with such high-stakes matters. Resorting to lies and character assassination when that demand is made is unacceptable and unethical.

“The rule of law requires transparency. The Court of Appeal must now address the foundational irregularities in this matter. Nigeria’s justice system deserves better than the distraction of personal bitterness from those whose own lapses contributed to this prolonged injustice.”