A fierce legal controversy has emerged following the decision of Nigerian lawyer Ifeanyi Ejiofor to represent Nneka Chimezie in the defamation suit instituted by his former principal, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, with Chinedu Michael describing the development as a grave betrayal of professional trust and a violation of the ethical obligations governing legal practitioners.
In a strongly worded statement issued from the Netherlands, Michael condemned Ejiofor’s decision to defend Chimezie, arguing that the lawyer’s nearly ten-year professional relationship with Kanu makes his involvement in the case a serious breach of the principles of loyalty, confidentiality and professional responsibility.
Michael described the development as far more than an ordinary change of legal representation, characterising it as professional betrayal and a decision driven by personal resentment following the termination of Ejiofor’s relationship with his former principal.
According to the statement, Ejiofor spent nearly ten years within Kanu’s inner legal circle as his confidential attorney, handling his legal battles, private family affairs and sensitive public controversies surrounding his personality and character.
During that period, the lawyer was directly involved in matters concerning Kanu, including the controversies surrounding accusations branding the IPOB leader a terrorist and attacks on his personal life.
Michael argued that the same lawyer who had access to Kanu’s confidential legal strategies, private affairs and personal vulnerabilities had now crossed over to defend Nneka Chimezie in a defamation suit involving the very issues he previously handled for his former principal.
Chimezie is facing the defamation action over statements concerning Kanu, including descriptions of him as a terrorist and a philanderer.
The statement maintained that the connection between Ejiofor’s previous professional responsibilities and his current representation of Chimezie raises fundamental questions under the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023.
Michael specifically identified Rules 17, 19 and 20 as provisions that address the circumstances surrounding the lawyer’s decision to represent Chimezie.
RULE 17: CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND SWITCHING SIDES AGAINST A FORMER CLIENT
Michael cited Rule 17(2) and Rule 17(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023, arguing that the provisions prohibit lawyers from accepting briefs where personal hostility, conflicting loyalties or other interests compromise their independent professional judgment.
He further argued that the provisions restrict lawyers from switching sides in matters connected to their previous representation where such a move creates a conflict with their professional obligations to former clients.
According to Michael, Ejiofor’s decision to represent a person involved in a defamation dispute with his former principal, after nearly ten years of handling Kanu’s legal and private affairs, amounts to a serious ethical contradiction.
He questioned how a lawyer could spend almost a decade receiving confidential instructions, understanding a client’s legal strategies and becoming familiar with his personal vulnerabilities, only to subsequently represent another party against that same client in a dispute involving related matters.
Michael described the decision as a malicious conflict of interest, insisting that professional loyalty cannot be discarded simply because a lawyer’s retainer has been terminated.
He maintained that Ejiofor’s involvement in the case was not clever legal advocacy but a disturbing departure from the professional standards expected of members of the Bar.
RULE 19: THE PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
The statement also examined Rule 19(1)(a) and Rule 19(1)(b), which Michael cited in connection with the confidentiality obligations lawyers owe their clients.
He argued that Rule 19(1)(a) protects oral and written communications exchanged between lawyers and their clients, while Rule 19(1)(b) prohibits lawyers from knowingly disclosing confidential information, using it to the disadvantage of a client or deploying it to benefit another person.
Michael emphasised that the responsibility to protect client confidentiality does not end when a professional relationship is terminated.
To support this position, he referenced the Supreme Court decision in Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (2007) NGSC 27, arguing that a lawyer’s obligation to preserve client secrets remains permanent, irrespective of whether the lawyer continues to represent the client.
He maintained that ten years of privileged communications, confidential briefings and private legal instructions cannot be erased by a press statement or the termination of a professional engagement.
Michael further argued that Ejiofor’s decision to defend Chimezie in a case involving issues connected to his previous professional dealings with Kanu places the lawyer’s conduct under serious ethical scrutiny.
He questioned whether confidential knowledge acquired during the nearly decade-long relationship could be deployed in assisting Chimezie against Kanu.
The statement described any use of privileged information against a former client as a serious violation of professional responsibility, insisting that the confidentiality owed to a client must remain protected even after the lawyer has been dismissed.
RULE 20: EJIOFOR’S POSITION AS A POTENTIAL MATERIAL WITNESS
Michael also invoked Rule 20(1) and Rule 20(3), arguing that the provisions prohibit a lawyer from conducting a trial where the lawyer knows, or ought reasonably to know, that he possesses firsthand factual knowledge of disputed issues and may be required to testify as a witness.
According to the statement, Ejiofor’s previous involvement in handling Kanu’s confidential legal instructions, private affairs and other matters connected to the controversy makes his personal knowledge relevant to the issues before the court.
Michael argued that Ejiofor is not an ordinary external lawyer with no previous connection to the parties or the matters in dispute.
He maintained that the lawyer’s previous professional involvement places his own knowledge and actions within the scope of questions that could arise during the proceedings.
The statement questioned the propriety of Ejiofor continuing to appear as defence counsel if his firsthand knowledge of disputed matters makes him a necessary witness in the case.
Michael described such a situation as a serious contradiction of the professional standards governing legal practitioners, insisting that a lawyer who needs to testify on material facts should not hide behind the privileges of legal representation.
MICHAEL: NO WIG CAN SHIELD A BETRAYER
In his concluding remarks, Michael described Ejiofor’s nearly ten-year engagement with Kanu as a sacred fiduciary relationship built on professional trust, loyalty and confidentiality.
He maintained that the decision to defend a person accused of defaming Kanu over matters connected to the lawyer’s previous professional responsibilities represents a serious violation of the principles governing the legal profession.
Michael insisted that the Rules of Professional Conduct are not meaningless documents but binding ethical standards designed to protect clients from practitioners who abuse the trust placed in them.
He argued that lawyers must not treat confidential client information and professional relationships as disposable instruments that can be turned against former clients whenever personal disagreements arise.
Drawing a comparison with his previous criticism of Justice James Omotosho over what he described as judicial bias and reliance on obsolete laws, Michael accused Ejiofor of walking into a professional crisis of his own making.
He maintained that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) should examine the circumstances surrounding Ejiofor’s representation of Chimezie and determine the appropriate disciplinary consequences under the applicable professional conduct rules.
Michael further declared that the defamation trial should proceed, insisting that Chimezie should appear in the witness box and produce the evidence she had boasted about possessing in her online statements.
He called for accountability within the legal profession, arguing that no lawyer should be permitted to exchange years of confidential client trust for personal revenge.
The statement concluded with a strong demand that the LPDC examine the matter and ensure that lawyers who violate their professional obligations are held accountable.
Michael insisted that the legal profession must not become a platform where former lawyers can weaponise privileged relationships against the very clients who once entrusted them with their most sensitive legal and personal affairs.
Signed:
Chinedu Michael
