The dispute between IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu and his longtime lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has escalated into a public war of words, with the group now insisting that Ejiofor’s claim of being reinstated as its counsel is null and void.
The disagreement began on July 22, when Kanu, writing from the Sokoto Correctional Centre, formally terminated Ejiofor’s services as his personal lawyer and withdrew any authority previously granted to him to represent IPOB, his family, or the movement in any capacity.
Kanu told Ejiofor that from the date of the letter, he had no authority – implied, express, or ostensible – to act, speak, or make representations on his behalf, adding that the earlier dismissal had already been communicated verbally and that the letter simply formalised it in writing.
Kanu grounded his authority to dismiss the lawyer in the movement’s Code of Conduct, and separately warned Ejiofor against disclosing any confidential information obtained during his years representing him, citing ongoing concerns about possible misuse of privileged material.
Ejiofor broke his silence in a statement posted to his Facebook page on Monday. He dismissed what he called the curious panic of those confronted by nothing but silence, insisting he had exercised restraint despite repeated provocations.
The lawyer alleged that Kanu had, over the years, orchestrated blackmail campaigns against him and filed frivolous petitions before his professional disciplinary body, and suggested the timing of Kanu’s confidentiality warning was linked to evidence he could produce in an unrelated defamation case.
He maintained he had always been guided by professional ethics and had no plans to divulge privileged information, while declining to directly address the sack letter, which he characterised as hurriedly assembled correspondence.
However on Tuesday, Ejiofor had gone further, publicly disputing the premise of Kanu’s letter altogether.
He insisted that he had voluntarily withdrawn from representing Kanu as far back as December 2023 – nearly three years before Kanu’s directive – and said he had not acted as Kanu’s personal counsel, family lawyer or legal representative since then.
Ejiofor also pointed to a separate letter he said reaffirmed his standing as IPOB’s lawyer, arguing his professional relationship with the group could not be unilaterally altered by what he called its former leadership figures.
However, the claim of reaffirmation has triggered IPOB’s rejection in a statement issued by spokesperson Comrade Emma Powerful, who dismissed the letter Ejiofor cited as a nullity on Tuesday, describing it as “a worthless piece of paper” and “not only unethical” but “dead on arrival.”
The group said the document was signed by Chika Edoziem, a former member it said has since been expelled, arguing that “in IPOB, you cannot give what you do not have,” and insisting that expelled individuals cannot confer legal authority in IPOB’s name.
IPOB reiterated that under its Code of Conduct, only Kanu, as the group’s Supreme Leader, holds “the sole authority to appoint, suspend, or dismiss officers, including legal representatives,” unless he explicitly delegates that authority – and that his decision to sack Ejiofor stands.
IPOB further questioned his authority, laying blame on Ejiofor for Kanu’s continued detention, describing his handling of the case as “a major reason Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains in detention.”
IPOB alleged that Ejiofor’s handling of the case – specifically, his failure to file a preliminary objection contesting a stay of execution it described as improperly issued – allowed the legal process to be derailed, resulting in what it called an unjust outcome before the court now hearing the matter.
It also accused Ejiofor of undermining Kanu’s position by returning to court on his own after Kanu boycotted a hearing, and by later visiting the Department of State Services to persuade Kanu to resume attending proceedings – actions IPOB characterised as “sabotage and compromise, which is precisely why he was sacked.”
The group also rejected Ejiofor’s claim that the original sack letter was improperly authenticated, saying it had been notarised by a lawyer in Sokoto and calling his denial confirmation of his “duplicity.”
IPOB insisted Ejiofor remains free to represent other clients but not the movement – “he is sacked, compromised, and permanently disengaged” – and warned that any arrangement he may have reached with the Nigerian government to divide IPOB’s leadership would not be recognised, calling it “dead on arrival.”
The group said it stands united behind Kanu and the current leadership structure, and signalled it was prepared to contest the matter in court if necessary.
(The Whistler)