THIS DAWN — Former Public Complaints Commission (PCC) commissioner, Barrister Obunike Ohaegbu, has lampooned Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, the former counsel of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) over his recent remarks on the trial of Kanu.
Barrister Ejimakor had released a detailed legal brief explaining why his team successfully blocked Kanu’s trial between February 2024 and February 2025.
Barrister Ejimakor also explained why he believes the Court of Appeal is now poised to overturn the conviction delivered by Justice James Omotosho in Abuja.
In a comprehensive statement, Ejimakor argued that the core legal issues that stalled Kanu’s trial remain the same defects that will likely invalidate the judgment on appeal.
The trial has long been mired in controversy, with widespread public belief that the Federal Government deliberately stalled proceedings.
However, the public admission by Kanu’s lead counsel dramatically shifted the narrative, raising questions about professional ethics and courtroom conduct.
Ejimakor, in clarifying his role in the protracted trial, acknowledged that he deliberately blocked and frustrated proceedings.
While intended as a defence of his strategy, Barrister Ohaegbu, in a memo made available to This Dawn, noted that the statement could be interpreted as a self‑indictment.
According to him, it exposed troubling lapses and professional rascality.
Duty of Defence Counsel
Ohaegbu stressed that a defence lawyer’s primary duty is to the court and to the defence of the client, not activism or political lobbying.
Rules 14 and 30 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 2007 emphasize diligence and assistance to the court.
Blocking a trial, especially in a capital matter, is seen as a violation of these obligations, Ohaegbu said.
For many observers like the former Ombudsman, Ejimakor’s admission amounts to professional misconduct.
He stressed that the Supreme Court has consistently held that speedy trial is integral to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution.
In capital offences, delays can jeopardize defendants facing potential death sentences.
Ejimakor’s strategy of obstruction, he argued, undermined his client’s right to a fair and timely trial.
Political Solutions vs. Legal Duties
Political interventions in Kanu’s case had already been championed by elder statesmen such as the late Chief Mbazulike Amaechi and Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife.
Ohaegbu noted that the lawyer’s role should have remained within the courtroom—cross‑examination, evidence presentation, and legal argumentation—rather than social‑media campaigns and street demonstrations.
Rule 15 of the RPC prohibits subordinating legal responsibilities to activism, yet Ejimakor appeared more focused on public advocacy than courtroom defence.
Appellate Principles Ignored
Ohaegbu pointed out that appellate courts cannot entertain issues not raised at trial, except on jurisdiction.
He cited authorities such as A‑G Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels and Okolo v. UBN to reinforce this principle.
He recalled courtroom scenes where Kanu, seemingly unguided, shouted “Show me the law!”—a spectacle he attributed to inadequate legal counsel.
He also highlighted Ejimakor’s decision to allow Kanu to represent himself, arriving in court with piles of books.
He observed that included amongst the books was a Catholic Bible, despite Kanu identifying himself as a Jew.
Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel, particularly in capital cases.
Allowing self‑representation, he argued, amounted to negligence and reduced the proceedings to theatre.
Ethical Breaches
Ohaegbu maintained that Ejimakor’s conduct may have violated multiple provisions of the RPC:
- Rule 14 & 15 – lack of diligence and competence.
- Rule 30 – duty to assist the court.
- Rule 32 – prohibition against misleading the court.
Legal canons, including R v. Stirland and In Re: A Solicitor, affirm that obstructing justice undermines public confidence in the profession.
He further argued that if Ejimakor preferred activism, he should have joined protest movements rather than leading courtroom defence.
The courtroom, he insisted, runs on law, procedure, and evidence—not hashtags or populist rhetoric.
Final Analysis
In sum, Ohaegbu insisted that Ejimakor’s admission has reframed the debate around Kanu’s trial.
For years, the Federal Government was accused of deliberate delays.
Now, by the lawyer’s own confession, the defence itself orchestrated much of the obstruction.
He emphasised that Ejimakor failed in his sacred duty to his client, the court, and the profession.
His actions violated ethical rules, undermined judicial process, and left Kanu exposed in a capital trial, he said.
For Ohaegbu and many Nigerians, the revelation exonerates the Federal Government from accusations of deliberate delay.
History, he argued, will record that the gravest setbacks in Kanu’s trial came not from the prosecution but from within the defence team itself.
