By Onikepo Braithwaite
Tali Shani v Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome: Background
This is a particularly strange and somewhat difficult piece for me to write, as it involves Chief Ozekhome, SAN, who is one of our Columnists. In the past week, the media has been awash with news of the British case of Tali Shani v Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome [2025] UKFTT 01090 (PC) Case No. REF/2023/0155 per Ewan Paton J, concerning the application for the transfer of a property situate at 79, Randall Avenue, London, UK from Tali Shani to Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN. The controversy stemmed from the fact that though the property was purchased by late Lt General Jeremiah Useni (Rtd), he registered it in a false name, Tali Shani, which in itself was suspicious. It is possible that Useni used a false name, because the property may have been purchased with illegitimate funds (see Paragraph 26 of the judgement). Although Chief Ozekhome claimed to have been introduced to Mr Tali Shani in 2019, Useni in his oral testimony stated that Mr Tali Shani had nothing to do with the purchase of the property (see Paragraph 40-41 of the judgement). These accounts, appear to be incompatible. Another twist in the story, however, is that a lady showed up and also claimed to be the Tali Shani who owned the property. She filed an objection at the Land Registry, to Chief Ozekhome’s registration application via Mr Tali Shani.
Questions arose, such as, who was the real Tali Shani, whether there was really a Tali Shani, or whether it was Useni or Ms or Mr Tali Shani who owned the property. However, the evidence given by all the parties in response to these questions, were riddled with contradictions which Paton J. highlighted throughout the judgement.
Findings of the Tribunal
Paton J. found that Useni, and not either of the Tali Shanis was the owner of the property – see for instance, Paragraphs 174, 183, 184, 189, 200, 207, particularly 214 of the judgement where Paton J stated inter alia that “Neither “Tali Shani” was who they said they were, and neither was the person who purchased this property in 1993. The real owner, via a false name, was General Jeremiah Useni”.
On Page 47 Paragraph 206, Paton J. also held thus: “I consider that the elaborate evidence of the Respondent, his son Osilama Ozekhome and Mr Shani on this issue was an invention and contrivance. It was invented in an attempt to provide a plausible reason why Mr Tali Shani, the alleged 1993 purchaser of this property, would have transferred it to the Respondent in 2021. I find that this attempts fails”. This is rather disturbing, as Paton J. appeared to be alleging that Chief Ozekhome and his witnesses engaged in some sort of identity fraud or impersonation, by ‘inventing’ a man who was presented as Mr Tali Shani, to take up the role of the fictitious name that appeared in Land Registry as the owner (see Paragraph 2 of the judgement). Also see for example, Sections 380-382 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2015 (CLLS) on impersonation.
On Page 46 Paragraph 202 of the judgement, Paton J. had held thus: “I do not, however, need to find precisely whether (and if so, how much) money was owed. The transfer may have been made out of friendship and generosity, or in recognition of some other service or favour. The one finding I do make, however, is that it was the decision of General Useni to transfer the property to the Respondent” (the Respondent being Chief Ozekhome).
The allegations of lying under oath (perjury) and fabrication of evidence, which many have levelled against Chief Ozekhome are troubling, though Paton J. didn’t refer to Chief Ozekhome, his son and Tali Shani’s testimonies in those particular terms. Under the CLLS, Sections 85-88, Perjury (giving false testimony in a judicial proceeding, whether written or oral) and Fabrication of Evidence with intent to mislead a court or tribunal are felonies, each liable upon conviction to 7 years imprisonment; see also the UK Perjury Act 1911. See Omoregie v DPP (1962) LPELR-4096(SC) per Adetokunbo Adegboyega Ademola, JSC (former CJN) on the definition of perjury.
While these are serious allegations against Chief Ozekhome, a SAN, Paton J. stated clearly in Paragraphs 200 and 202, that 1) it was certainly not an attempt by Chief Ozekhome to steal Useni’s property without his knowledge; and 2) Useni intended to transfer the property to Chief Ozekhome. Nevertheless, it appears the Paton J. took the view that Chief Ozekhome tried to get what Useni intended to be his through an illegal act, that is, perfect his title through one Tali Shani who was determined not to be the real owner, and could even have been a fictitious person. This appears to have been one of the reasons why Paton J. instructed the Chief Land Registrar to reject Chief Ozekhome’s application for transfer (Paragraph 210), and directed that the property be left in the estate of the late Useni.
The Messenger and the Message
I have mostly refrained from commenting about Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), I mean the misconduct of some of them, because I had applied to be elevated to the rank in 2021 and 2022. I was shortlisted both times, but wasn’t elevated. Had I made comments which may have been uncomplimentary about SANs, some myopic people may have mistaken my comments as some kind of vengeance for not being elevated, when in actual fact, the issues that some of the SANs have been involved in over the years are quite disturbing, and majority now understand that some things must be said, in the hope that the Body of Senior Advocates (BOSAN) will indulge in some serious introspection coupled with better and more effective self-regulation, while the LPDC and LPPC will bring accountability and discipline into the legal profession. For those who are narrow minded, I enjoin you in this circumstance to look at the message, and not necessarily the Messenger, should you wrongly believe that it’s a revenge mission on my part!
2017: “SANship: Becoming Integrity Deficient?”
Interestingly, about eight years ago, in 2017, four years before I applied to be a SAN, I wrote an article titled “SANship: Becoming Integrity Deficient?” In that piece, I cited Section 16(2) of the then Guidelines for the Conferment of SAN, in which the category of Integrity had the highest percentage of 25% out of 100% ascribed, even over and above general knowledge of law which was 15%. I had said thus: “The purport of the Guidelines, is that a candidate for SAN must have a flawless and unimpeachable character. Sadly, it seems that what should be a pre-condition before the other requirements kick in, so that our Honourable Profession is not brought into infamy and disrepute, may be the most unimportant to the Privileges Committee”. That flawless and unimpeachable character shouldn’t just be for SAN Candidates, but for SANs and indeed, all Lawyers, and without enforcement of ‘fit and proper behaviour’ by the appropriate bodies, we will continue to see the decline of standards in our profession.
2017 Examples: Candidate A and SAN B
I used examples of two individuals in my 2017 piece, one, a SAN Candidate (Candidate A) and the other, a substantive SAN (SAN B). Candidate A was indicted for professional misconduct/infamous conduct by a Disciplinary Panel, while the court had inter alia made a pronouncement of “professional impropriety and moral impropriety” on Candidate A’s character sometime before Candidate A applied to be elevated. I then asked: “….how does a person indicted by the Disciplinary Panel in 2014 for professional misconduct and infamous conduct contrary not just to the Guidelines, but to conduct expected from a candidate for SAN, suddenly become eligible, of good character and impeccable integrity in 2017?”; eventually, the Candidate was elevated.
The second example, was about SAN B, who I called ‘The King of Fake Service’ of court processes. I said thus: “His chambers purported to effect personal service of a court process on my client. Unfortunately for them, aside from the fact that the signature on the acknowledgement was certainly not that of my client, my client who has more than one office in Lagos, had not visited the particular office where he was alleged to have received the court process, in at least 5 years prior to the fake service! My client’s signature had been forged on the acknowledgement, and quite badly, I might add. I was shocked when I saw the same SAN, who is famous for his unbecoming conduct and underhand tactics, in court last year (2016), still using the fake service tactics. The Lawyer on the opposing side, vehemently denied that his client had been served by the Unlearned SAN”. To date, SAN B is notorious for sharp practices. In my client’s case, SAN B’s firm was involved in Forgery, a felony contrary to Section 363 of the CLLS and punishable under Section 365 thereof, with imprisonment of at least 3 years. The fact that I subsequently witnessed SAN B having the same exchange about fake service of court processes in court, was an indication that fake service is part and parcel of SAN B’s practice. In spite of that, instead of facing disciplinary action for misdeeds, SAN B is still a SAN. Of course, such undesirable behaviour isn’t limited to SANs alone; it runs through other members of the legal profession too.
Something I pointed out in my 2017 piece was that, when the names of the shortlisted SAN Candidates were published in the newspapers, two different parties had petitioned against Candidate A. To their shock, their petitions which contained weighty allegations against Candidate A hadn’t been considered – the Petitioners had not been called to give evidence, and Candidate A’s name appeared on the final list of successful SAN Candidates. It was after that, that both parties were constrained to publish their petitions in the form of advertisements in the newspaper, to get the LPPC’s attention. This points to the fact that, either the petitions were suppressed by the LPPC Secretariat so that the then LPPC Members didn’t get to see the petitions, or in the alternative, the LPPC Members saw the petitions and chose to ignore them until they were forced to address them, when they became public knowledge in the newspaper.
One of my conclusions was that: “I hope that the esteemed rank, will not be turned into ‘Senior Advocate of Nefariousness’, making most deserving and decent Lawyers shy away from it”! “The essence of having a Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee, is not for decoration, but to hold Lawyer’s accountable for their actions, and discipline them where necessary. The fear of being apprehended and disciplined, and in the worst case scenario, being disbarred or prosecuted for criminal acts, will serve as a deterrent against professional misconduct and impunity”. Unfortunately, a good number of those who are petitioned against, simply receive a small slap on the wrist, and this lack of accountability and discipline has been the perfect stimulant for sharp practices, even bordering on criminality.
Conclusion
As the 2025 set of SANs are set to be elevated in the coming week, this is as good a time as any for SANs to examine some of the pertinent issues relating to themselves, and for them to do some soul searching. The fact that in Chief Ozekhome’s case, the pronouncements were made by a foreign Tribunal, thereby exposing the rank and Nigerian Lawyers in general to international embarrassment and ridicule, is unfortunate. Why must it take foreign courts, to be the ones to make such pronouncements where necessary? This is an indictment on the Nigerian legal system. The truth is that, not just SANs, but the Nigerian legal profession as a whole, including the Judiciary, need to look inwards, and undertake to do better.
Last year, I saw a news report, a statement attributed to Honourable Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC stating that some of those vying to be elevated to the rank of SAN are involved in the unethical practice of copying the briefs of argument of other Counsel and submitting them as theirs, in order to meet the SAN requirements. These cheaters are then elevated to the rank, meaning that even from the foundation of becoming a SAN, bad behaviour is not just tolerated, it is accepted. What then does one expect from such people, when they become SANs, if not sharp, Jankara tactics?
