Renowned human-rights lawyer and lead counsel to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has delivered a scathing assessment of the legal team that recently handled Nnamdi Kanu’s case, accusing them of reducing a matter of grave national and international importance to a social-media performance.
In a strongly worded statement titled “Nnamdi Kanu’s Avoidable Ordeal: How Amateur Legal Showmen Led a High-Profile Case into a Judicial Ambush,” Ejiofor said the behaviour of certain lawyers marked a tragic departure from the disciplined, strategic approach previously applied to the case.
According to him, the new handlers “turned a sensitive criminal trial into content.” They transformed court sessions into opportunities for videos, camera poses, and social-media visibility rather than rigorous legal work,” he alleged.
The human rights lawyer described them as “bloated, delusional entertainers-in-wigs” whose antics gradually eroded the substance of the defence.
Ejiofor recalled that from 2015 until his team’s withdrawal in December 2023—first under his leadership and later under the headship of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Prof. Mike Ozekhome—Kanu’s defence had secured landmark victories, including the 2022 Court of Appeal judgment that discharged and acquitted the IPOB leader.
According to him, sustained pressure, discreet diplomacy, and coordinated legal manoeuvring had placed the team on the brink of another major breakthrough.
Progress jeopardized
But the progress was allegedly jeopardised when Kanu revealed sensitive strategic details “perhaps innocently” to individuals he described as “clueless clowns.”
Rather than support a strategy they did not understand, these individuals, Ejiofor claims, hijacked the information and used it to create confusion, culminating in a disruptive restructuring of the legal team.
“Consequently, we exited gloriously, and with our integrity intact,” he said.
Ejiofor emphasised that a high-profile, politically charged criminal trial is “not a circus ring,” yet once these new actors stepped in, proceedings devolved into what he characterised as “a grotesque parody of legal representation.”
Instead of research and preparation, he said they prioritised filming, posing, and “going viral.”
He argued that the consequences were dire. Despite explicit warnings from the court that self-representation in such a complex matter was risky, these individuals reportedly encouraged it.
The result, he said, was avoidable: a full criminal trial that could have been paused—or prevented—if the appropriate legal methodology had been sustained.
Public was misled
Ejiofor alleged that the new legal handlers repeatedly misled the public with half-truths and social-media updates that became “landmines” in court.
Every false claim outside, he said, became a contradiction the prosecution documented inside.
“Meanwhile, distractions and theatrics overshadowed the seriousness of the case.
He questioned how globally respected Senior Advocates—such as Chief Kanu Agabi and Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu—became disengaged at such a critical moment.
The development he noted created room for “mediocre adventurers” to take over a matter requiring deep constitutional and criminal expertise.
“Who replaces world-class physicians with herbal storytellers during brain surgery?” he asked.
Ejiofor said the first step toward correcting the damage is a sober, methodical reassessment of strategy.
He called for reduced publicity, renewed engagement with credible legal minds, and a return to disciplined advocacy.
“This is not the time for comedy or inflated egos,” he said. “It is time for competence. Time for real advocacy. Enough is enough.”
