When Mike Ozekhome, Senior Advocate of Nigeria received N75 million from former Ekiti State governor Ayodele Fayose, Ekiti State in 2016, few could have predicted the legal firestorm that would follow. The payment was meant as part‑payment for legal services Ozekhome rendered in a series of high‑profile cases across the country. Within weeks, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) threw a wrench into the arrangement by freezing Ozekhome’s account, alleging the money was proceeds of crime.
Background: The 2016 Account Freeze
It all began when the EFCC, acting on a court order from Justice I.B.M Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos, froze the bank accounts of Governor Fayose on suspicion that he was harbouring illicit funds. Fayose’s legal team, led by Ozekhome, immediately challenged the ex parte order. They filed a suit in the Federal High Court at Ado Ekiti, where Justice Taiwo Taiwo presided.
Court Battles: From Freezing Order to Unfreezing
Justice Taiwo’s judgment was swift and decisive. He found the original freezing order "improperly granted and without jurisdiction," citing the suppression of material facts. With the injunction lifted, Fayose withdrew a modest N5 million for personal use and transferred the bulk sum—N75 million—to Ozekhome’s chambers as a partial fee for legal representation.
But the EFCC was far from done. In a move that raised eyebrows, the commission appealed Justice Taiwo’s decision yet, 47 days after the payment, seized Ozekhome’s account. Their argument? The money was not a legitimate fee but the proceeds of unlawful activity, effectively turning a lawyer’s earnings into a suspect transaction.
EFCC’s Rationale and Legal Counters
Representing the commission, senior counsel U. U. Buhari argued that the payment lacked transparency and appeared to be a method of laundering funds stashed by the former governor. In response, Ozekhome’s lawyer Ejieke Onuoha presented invoices, bank statements, and receipts that spelled out the services rendered—ranging from asset recovery to defence in corruption probes.
"We have uncontroverted evidence that the N75 million represents bona‑fide legal fees," Ozekhome told the court. The documents showed detailed billing for case preparation, court appearances, and advisory work spanning three years.
Appellate Verdict: Payment Deemed Legitimate
The appellate court, sitting in Lagos, reviewed the lower court’s findings and the accompanying paperwork. It concluded that the evidence left no room for doubt: the sum was a lawful payment for professional services. Moreover, because Ozekhome had already spent the money before the freeze, the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to intervene.
Justice Abulazeez Anka ultimately vacated the freeze order, restoring Ozekhome’s account and closing a chapter that had stretched over several years.
Implications for the Legal Community
Legal experts say the case underscores the delicate balance between anti‑corruption enforcement and the sanctity of attorney‑client relationships. "Lawyers must be able to receive payment without fear of asset seizure, provided they can prove the fees are for legitimate services," noted Prof. Chinedu Okeke of the University of Lagos Law Faculty.
At the same time, the EFCC’s aggressive stance signals its intent to scrutinise any large transfers linked to public officials, even when a lawyer is involved. The precedent may prompt lawyers to adopt stricter documentation practices when handling high‑value retainer fees.
What Comes Next?
While the immediate dispute is resolved, the broader fight against corruption in Ekiti and other states continues. Fayose remains under investigation for unrelated matters, and the EFCC has hinted at further inquiries into the sources of his wealth. For Ozekhome, the victory restores professional credibility but also places a spotlight on how senior advocates manage large payments.
Key Facts
- 2016: EFCC freezes Fayose’s accounts on Justice I.B.M Idris’s order.
- June 2016: Justice Taiwo Taiwo overturns the freeze, calling it unlawful.
- July 2016: Fayose transfers N75 million to Ozekhome as partial legal fees.
- August 2016 (47 days later): EFCC freezes Ozekhome’s account.
- 2022 (Oct): Appellate court, led by Justice Abulazeez Anka, declares the payment legitimate and lifts the freeze.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does this ruling affect other lawyers handling high‑value cases?
The decision reinforces that attorneys can receive large retainer fees as long as they maintain clear, documented invoices. It may encourage lawyers to adopt more rigorous billing records to pre‑empt similar freezes.
What was the EFCC’s main argument for freezing Ozekhome’s account?
EFCC counsel argued the N75 million could be proceeds of unlawful activity linked to former Governor Fayose, suggesting the transfer was a method of laundering money rather than a genuine fee.
What evidence did Ozekhome’s team present to prove the payment was legitimate?
The defence produced detailed invoices, bank statements, and receipts indicating specific legal services rendered, including case strategy documents and court appearance logs, covering a period of three years.
Who represented the EFCC and Ozekhome in court?
Senior counsel U. U. Buhari acted for the EFCC, while Ejieke Onuoha defended Ozekhome’s interests.
What precedent does this case set for future corruption investigations?
It clarifies that asset freezes must be backed by clear jurisdiction and that payments to lawyers are presumed legitimate when backed by uncontroverted documentation, limiting overreach by anti‑corruption agencies.
12 Comments
Honestly, this whole drama looks like a badly scripted soap opera that Ozekhome just got roped into. The EFCC apparently thought they could freeze a senior advocate’s account without proper jurisdiction-definately a misstep. It’s like they’re playing fast‑and‑loose with the law, hoping to scare off any lawyer who dares to take big money from politicians. The court finally set them straight, but the damage to reputation was already done. It just goes to show that high‑profile lawyers need to keep their paperwork tighter than ever, or they’ll end up in the headlines for the wrong reasons.
/p>This case is nothing short of a theatrical farce, staged by the EFCC to grab headlines. The agency’s argument hinges on the nebulous notion of "proceeds of crime," yet the evidentiary trail is as clear as daylight: invoices, bank statements, and receipts. Their appeal appears driven more by a desire for drama than by substantive legal grounds. The appellate court’s decision restores sanity, confirming that a properly documented fee cannot be dismissed as a laundering scheme. One can only lament the wasted judicial resources on such a mock‑battle.
/p>Justice in this nation is like a fragile glass, easily shattered by the weight of corruption. When a senior advocate is forced to defend the very mechanisms that protect the powerful, it reveals the moral decay of our institutions. The EFCC’s overreach undermines the sanctity of attorney‑client privilege, a cornerstone of a fair legal system. Lawyers must be able to receive compensation without fear of arbitrary seizure, or else the scales of justice will forever tip toward oppression. This verdict, therefore, is a small victory for ethical governance, yet the battle against systemic rot continues.
/p>Honestly, your lofty moralizing sounds like a pretentious lecture from a coffee‑shop philosopher. The reality is far less poetic: this is a blunt legal transaction, documented with receipts and invoices. Your emphasis on "justice as glass" is trite, and the typo‑laden prose does nothing to clarify the facts. The EFCC simply overstepped, and the court corrected that error-nothing more, nothing less. Let’s keep the discussion grounded in the actual paperwork, not in airy metaphors.
/p>Wake up, folks! This is classic deep‑state meddling, a coordinated effort to intimidate anyone who dares to handle money for politically exposed persons. The EFCC’s sudden freeze, weeks after the payment, smells like a covert operation to signal that no one is untouchable. They’ll claim it’s about anti‑corruption, but the pattern mirrors the covert tactics used to silence dissent. Keep your eyes open; the next target could be anyone who steps into the legal gray zone.
/p>Looks like the EFCC just overreacted again. They froze the account even though there were clear records. The lawyer had the right to get paid. This whole thing could have been avoided with better paperwork, but the agency jumped too quickly.
/p>It is heart‑warming to see a legal victory that respects both the rule of law and the cultural fabric of our society; such outcomes reinforce the importance of balancing anti‑corruption efforts with professional rights. I appreciate how the courts upheld the documentation, showing that transparency transcends borders, and we can celebrate a step forward for justice. 🙏
/p>Nice point! :)
/p>The strategic alignment of fiduciary compliance mechanisms with evidentiary standards demonstrates a robust procedural framework that unequivocally validates the legitimacy of the fee transaction; any deviation from this model would constitute a breach of due process. Moreover, the jurisprudential precedent set herein underscores the necessity for forensic accounting in high‑value engagements, thereby mitigating regulatory overreach. In essence, the appellate ruling operationalizes a best‑practice protocol for future legal fee structures, ensuring that practitioners can navigate the financial labyrinth with confidence.
/p>Wow, what a rollercoaster! From freeze to freedom, this saga had more twists than a thriller novel. The courtroom drama was electric, and the final verdict feels like a triumphant crescendo. Kudos to everyone who fought for the truth, and may this inspire more transparency and justice across the board!
/p>It’s encouraging to see that the legal system can self‑correct when overreach occurs. While the EFCC’s intentions may have been to curb corruption, we must ensure that due process isn’t sacrificed. A balanced approach benefits everyone.
/p>Dear colleagues, I wish to extend my heartfelt congratulations on the appellate court’s decisive ruling, which reaffirms the sanctity of documented legal remuneration. This outcome not only vindicates the senior advocate’s professional integrity but also delineates a clear precedent for future jurisprudence concerning attorney‑client financial interactions. May this serve as an exemplar of judicious adjudication and reinforce confidence in our legal institutions.
/p>