The Senior Advocate Facing Forgery Charges Over a London House

By

Case: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, Ponfa Useni & Gen. Jeremiah Useni (deceased) Court: FCT High Court, Maitama, Abuja — Hon. Justice Chizoba (C.N.) Oji Status: Ongoing — trial proceeding, no verdict yet

This is a "Case to Watch" post — the matter is still before the court, with no final judgment. It's a genuinely unusual one to follow, not least because the defendant is himself one of Nigeria's most prominent legal practitioners.

Background

Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, a well-known constitutional lawyer, became the subject of criminal proceedings arising from a long-running property dispute over a house at 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2. The dispute had already been the subject of proceedings before the UK's First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), where Ozekhome, on one side, maintained the property had been gifted to him in 2021 by a Mr. Shani Tali, while a separate claimant — a Ms. Tali Shani, through her own legal representatives — asserted competing ownership.

Nigerian authorities' criminal case grew out of that dispute. The core allegation is that a Nigerian international passport, purportedly belonging to "Shani Tali" and used to support the London ownership claim, was in fact forged — and that Ponfa Useni (son of the late General Jeremiah Useni, a retired military officer who served as FCT Minister under the Abacha administration) had impersonated "Tali Shani" using that document, with the late General Useni alleged to have been involved as well before his death in January 2025.

How the Charges Evolved

The case has gone through more than one iteration. The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) first filed a narrower three-count charge against Ozekhome alone in January 2026, focused on receiving the property and using the allegedly forged passport to support his ownership claim. That was followed, in February 2026, by a broader 12-count charge — this time brought by the Attorney-General's office with EFCC involvement, naming Ozekhome, Ponfa Useni, and the late General Useni jointly, and adding conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation counts tracing back to 2020.

Ozekhome and Ponfa Useni were arraigned on the amended charge before Justice Chizoba Oji at the FCT High Court in Maitama. Both were granted bail in the sum of ₦10 million each, with one surety apiece.

What's Happened Procedurally So Far

  • The court has repeatedly adjourned and reset trial dates, with the presiding judge indicating an intention to hear the matter on an accelerated basis.
  • In mid-2026, the court granted Ozekhome permission for a six-week medical trip to the UK, on the condition that he surrender his passport to the court by a specified date and return for the continuation of trial, which was adjourned to late September 2026.
  • As of the most recent reporting reviewed, the matter remains at the trial stage, with no findings of fact or verdict yet reached on any of the twelve counts.

Why This Case Is Worth Watching

Beyond the property dispute itself, this case has drawn particular attention because Ozekhome is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a prominent commentator on constitutional and human rights law — meaning a criminal trial involving him carries a different kind of scrutiny than an ordinary case, both from the legal profession and the wider public. It's also a useful example of how a private, cross-border property dispute (with parallel proceedings running in a UK tribunal) can generate a separate criminal prosecution in Nigeria over the authenticity of the documents used to support one side's claim.

A Note on This Post

Because this matter is unresolved, this post makes no assessment of the truth of the underlying allegations or the merits of the defence. The individuals named are presumed innocent of the criminal charges unless and until a court finds otherwise. A follow-up post will be published once the trial concludes.

This post is based on publicly available news reporting of an ongoing criminal matter and is intended for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and nothing in it should be read as an assessment of the case's merits. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tenant at Will or Yearly Tenant? What a Landlord-Tenant Dispute Teaches Us About Proving Oral Agreements: Odutola v. Papersack (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Image
If you've ever relied on a verbal understanding instead of getting it in writing, this case is a cautionary tale. It's a dispute over a warehouse in Lagos that turned entirely on one question: can you prove a tenancy existed just by saying so — or does the law demand more? The Property at the Centre of It All The dispute concerned premises at 44, Eric Moore Road, Iganmu Industrial Estate, Lagos. The first appellant owned the property outright and was also the founder, majority shareholder, and Managing Director of the second appellant, a company that had taken over the unexpired interest in the property from December 1991. According to the appellants, the original tenant of the property was a different company entirely — Thoresen and Co. (Nig.) Ltd — whose tenancy expired in 1980, then got a brief extension to 1982. The respondent, Papersack (Nig.) Ltd, moved into the property during Thoresen's tenancy, initially without the appellants' consent. It later paid rent for a...
Read more

F.R.N. v. Lamido [2026]

By
Image
A note before we begin: the underlying criminal trial in this matter is not concluded. This appeal was about a preliminary ruling only — whether the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case at all, and a procedural question about how the notice of appeal was framed. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision below is a finding of guilt or innocence on the substantive charges, which the trial court has now been directed to continue hearing. The respondent is presumed innocent unless and until that trial concludes with a finding to the contrary. Introduction This was an appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against a Court of Appeal ruling that had discharged the respondent from a money laundering and conspiracy charge, on the basis that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear it. The Supreme Court, unanimously, allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for the trial to continue. Fact of the Case The respondent, together with seven othe...
Read more

You Struck Out the Plaintiff's Claim— But You Still Owe Him a Hearing Notice: Osumuo v. Udeaja [2026] 11 NWLR (Pt. 2052) 443 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Imagine winning a court case worth a piece of prime land in Nnewi — only to have that victory wiped out years later, not because your evidence was weak, but because the man on the other side never got a notice telling him when to show up. That is the entire story of Osumuo v. Udeaja. It is a reminder that in Nigerian courts, a judgment can be procedurally spotless and legally doomed at the same time, if one small, unglamorous document — the hearing notice — never left the registry. The Facts The land at the centre of the fight, known as "Mbana" and sitting along the Onitsha–Owerri Road in Nnewi, Anambra State, had been leased out in 1953 for a term of 99 years. Decades later, the lessee's successor sued the lessor's successor, Andrew Osumuo, claiming a right to continued possession of the land, a declaration that a fresh lump-sum demand for ₦600,000 was improper, and other reliefs. Osumuo, once served, denied the claims and fired back with his own counter-claim: he wa...
Read more