|
Listen to article
|
The Federal Government, on Tuesday, filed a fresh 12-count charge against a prominent lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, following his alleged complicity in a web of fraud perpetrated in a bid to claim ownership of a disputed property in the United Kingdom.
Specifically, Ozekhome, in the charge that was entered before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, was slammed with allegations of forgery and abetment of an offence.
FG alleged that sometime in 2020, he agreed with one Ponfa Useni (aka Tali Shani) and General Jeremiah Useni (now deceased) to commit an illegal act by making a false Nigerian International Passport No. A07535463 with the name Tali Shani.
Read Also: Lawyers Challenge Tinubu’s Oil Revenue Order As Illegal
It was alleged that the defendant claimed the forged passport was issued by the Nigeria Immigration Service “with the intent of using the same to support your claim of a property, lying, being, and situate at No. 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2, United Kingdom, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 96 of the Penal Code Law 2009 and punishable under section 364 of the same Law.”
According to the charge, Ozekhome further abetted the commission of an offence of cheating by personation when he jointly executed an irrevocable power of attorney dated May 30, 2020, with one Tali Shani, “a fictitious person,” to facilitate the claim of the UK property, and thereby committed an offence contrary to sections 83, 84, 321 of the Penal Code Law, 2009, and punishable under section 322 of the same Law.
While Count 9 of the charge alleged that he took control of the UK property, which is reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully obtained by General Jeremiah Useni (now deceased) under the fictitious name Tali Shani, he was, in Count 10, alleged to have, within the period, collected the sum of £18,000.00 as rent that accrued from the property.
Useni, who was said to have falsely personated a fictitious person (Tali Shani), was cited as the 2nd defendant in the charge that was signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN.
The charge came hours after the high court struck out a three-count charge the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) earlier filed against the senior lawyer.
Justice Peter Kekemeke struck out the charge after it was withdrawn by the AGF on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, some counts in the new charge before the court read: “That you, Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome, SAN, Male, Adult of 55 Nile Street, Maitama, Abuja, Ponfa Useni (aka Tali Shani), Male, Adult of 12 Dagash M. Street, Kado Estate, Phase 1, Abuja, and General Jeremiah Useni (now deceased), sometime between 2023 and 2025 in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, dishonestly used as genuine a false Nigerian International Passport No. A07535463 with the name Tali Shani, and you thereby committed an offence of forgery contrary to Section 366 of the Penal Code Law 2009 and punishable under Section 364 of the same Law.”
“That you Ponfa Useni (aka Tali Shani), Male, Adult of 12 Dagash M. Street, Kado Estate, Phase 1, Abuja, on or about the 30th day of May 2020 in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this honourable court cheated by personation when you pretended to be one Tali Shani, a fictitious person, and with such assumed character executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated the 30th day of May 2020 with Chief Mike A. A. Ozekhome, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 321 of the Penal Code Law 2009 and punishable under section 322 of the same Law.”
“That you, Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome, SAN, Male, Adult of 55 Nile Street, Maitama, Abuja, Ponfa Useni (aka Tali Shani), Male, Adult of 12 Dagash M. Street, Kado Estate, Phase 1, Abuja, and General Jeremiah Useni (now deceased), sometime in the year 2023 in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, made a false document titled: RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHENTICATION OF NIGERIAN PASSPORT NO. A07535463 BELONGING TO MR. TALI SHANI dated 4th May 2023 and purported same to have been issued by the Nigeria Immigration Service with the intent of using the same to support your claim to a property located at No. 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2, United Kingdom, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 363 of the Penal Code Law 2009 and punishable under section 364 of the same Law.”
No date has been fixed for the defendants to be arraigned.
A sweeping executive order signed by President Bola Tinubu earlier this month that strips the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited of its authority to deduct management and exploration fees before remitting oil revenues to the national treasury has drawn sharp legal opposition, with senior members of the Nigerian bar arguing the directive cannot lawfully override an act of the National Assembly, even as the Presidency insists the order is constitutionally grounded and will stand.
The order, formally titled the Presidential Executive Order to Safeguard Federation Oil and Gas Revenues and Provide Regulatory Clarity 2026 and gazetted on February 13, requires that all government entitlements from petroleum operations, including royalty oil, tax oil, profit oil, profit gas, and related revenues under Production Sharing Contracts, be remitted directly into the Federation Account. It also suspends NNPCL’s retention of a 30 percent management fee on profit oil and profit gas, halts contributions to the 30 percent Frontier Exploration Fund, and redirects gas flare penalties away from the Midstream Gas Infrastructure Fund.
The Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria staged a protest at NNPC Towers in Abuja, accusing the president of breaching the Petroleum Industry Act and warning that the order would undermine NNPCL’s capacity to fund core operations, including hydrocarbon exploration commitments budgeted for 2026. The union threatened further action unless the government reverses the measure.
The Presidency rejected that position firmly.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga, responding to questions on Monday, said PENGASSAN had made a “knee-jerk reaction” without examining the constitutional basis for the directive. “PENGASSAN is focusing on PIA alone,” Mr. Onanuga said. “The President’s action is based on the Nigerian Constitution, which PIA violates in allowing the deductions that the President has now stopped. PIA is not superior to our constitution.” He said the order draws its legal authority from Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution, which vests executive powers of the Federation in the president, and from Section 44(3), which places ownership and control of all minerals, mineral oils, and natural gas in the hands of the federal government. The order, he said, was designed to reclaim revenue entitlements of the federal, state, and local governments that were “taken away in 2021 by the Petroleum Industry Act.”
Read Also: Tinubu Hosts Governors For Ramadan Iftar In Aso Rock
Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications Sunday Dare reinforced that position in a separate statement published on his official social media account Monday, citing Section 80(1) of the Constitution, which requires all revenues received by the Federation to be deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Mr. Dare argued that Executive Order 9 neither creates new law nor amends the PIA, but rather operationalises existing constitutional provisions by directing petroleum revenues into legally recognised government accounts. “EO9 does not intrude into legislative competence,” he said, adding that if the order’s validity is disputed, the judiciary was the appropriate venue for resolution. Until any such determination is made, he said, the executive branch remained obligated to protect Federation revenues.
Eight Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Lekan Ojo, Adeola Adedipe, Paul Obi, Wale Balogun, Dr. Wahab Shittu, Dr. Abiodun Layonu, Isiaka Olagunju, and Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, each stated that an executive order cannot override, nullify, or set aside an act of the National Assembly, and that only a court of law holds the constitutional authority to declare legislation invalid.
Nigerian Bar Association President Afam Osigwe (SAN) was equally direct. “No, he does not,” Mr. Osigwe said when asked whether the president holds the power to modify an existing law through executive instrument. “A president cannot, by executive order, modify or alter a law. A president doesn’t have the power.”
Mr. Ojo elaborated on the structural limits of executive authority under Nigeria’s constitutional framework. The Petroleum Industry Act, he noted, is an act of the National Assembly, and the president cannot amend, alter, abrogate, or nullify any of its provisions by executive directive. “Executive order is like instruments to give effect to executive decisions and laws,” he said. “Where the law has prescribed a particular thing, the President cannot, by executive order, do the opposite.” He said the only legitimate path for addressing provisions the executive finds objectionable is for the National Assembly to initiate amendments, adding that neither executive nor judicial legislation is permitted under the 1999 Constitution. “Any attempt to amend an executive order is nothing but a nullity, and it is to that extent ineffective,” he said.
