Nigeria’s Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has been accused of deploying the enormous prosecutorial powers of his office against a serving member of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Amobi Godwin Ogah, in a criminal case linked to a bitter political dispute involving Fagbemi’s former private client.
Documents detailing the circumstances surrounding the case raise serious questions about conflict of interest, prosecutorial abuse, judicial impartiality and an alleged attempt to use criminal proceedings and crushing bail conditions to politically incapacitate Ogah ahead of another election cycle.
At the centre of the controversy is the fact that Fagbemi, before becoming Nigeria’s Attorney-General, served as personal lead counsel to Hon. Nkeiruka Onyejeocha during the election petition proceedings arising from the 2023 National Assembly elections.
After Fagbemi became Attorney-General, the Federal Government’s prosecutorial machinery was reportedly deployed in a criminal defamation case against Ogah over statements contained in an affidavit connected with the same election dispute in which the Attorney-General had previously represented Onyejeocha.
The development has triggered allegations that Nigeria’s chief law officer is using public prosecutorial powers in a dispute connected to the political interests of a former private client. Documents relating to the proceedings also raise concerns that the prosecution, the unexplained mid-trial transfer of the case, objections surrounding the new trial judge and extraordinary bail conditions could have the effect of removing Ogah from active political participation.
The controversy dates back to the election petition proceedings between Ogah and Onyejeocha. Records of the dispute indicate that both politicians independently complained about the composition of the Election Petition Tribunal panels and separately requested their reconstitution.
The President of the Court of Appeal subsequently granted the requests and reconstituted the panels in an effort to address concerns about impartiality. However, Ogah is now facing a criminal defamation prosecution connected with statements contained in an affidavit arising from the dispute over those panels.
The circumstances have raised questions about why a matter arising from complaints surrounding an election litigation process in which both sides raised objections has resulted in criminal prosecution against one of the political actors.
The handling of the criminal case has also come under scrutiny following the abrupt transfer of the case file from the original presiding judge, Justice Aminu M. Abdullahi.
According to documents detailing the proceedings, the case was transferred while Ogah’s defence team was actively cross-examining Onyejeocha. The defence was reportedly not given prior notice or any explanation for the sudden transfer.
The matter was subsequently reassigned to Justice Halilu, who, according to the documents, had been a member of one of the panels previously affected by the reconstitution process arising from complaints connected with the 2023 election dispute between Ogah and Onyejeocha.
The reassignment has raised concerns because the history and composition of the tribunal panels form part of the background surrounding the criminal charge.
The defence has also raised questions about Justice Halilu’s continued handling of the case. According to the documents, the judge’s name appears several times in materials connected with the criminal proceedings, including the police investigation report.
Ogah’s lawyers consequently argued that the judge’s previous connection to events forming part of the background of the criminal case could potentially make him a material witness.
The defence reportedly wrote to the Chief Judge requesting that the case be transferred from Justice Halilu’s court on the grounds of his earlier involvement in circumstances connected with the dispute. Despite the objection, the judge has continued to preside over the trial, intensifying questions about fair hearing and the appearance of judicial impartiality in the proceedings.
The controversy deepened after the court imposed stringent new bail conditions on the federal lawmaker despite his defence maintaining that he was already on subsisting bail granted by the same FCT High Court.
According to the documents, Ogah had consistently attended court proceedings since the case began. His lawyers also maintained that the Court of Appeal had indicated that a fresh bail application was unnecessary because the earlier bail remained valid.
Justice Halilu nevertheless imposed fresh conditions requiring Ogah to provide two sureties, each of whom must own titled property worth at least ₦1 billion.
The properties must be located exclusively in Maitama or Asokoro, two of Abuja’s most expensive districts, while the original title documents are to be deposited with the court.
The court also ordered the serving lawmaker to surrender his passport and swear an affidavit of good behaviour.
The defence has questioned the passport restriction, arguing that Ogah is a serving federal lawmaker whose responsibilities may require international travel on legislative and official assignments.
The cumulative effect of the prosecution and the stringent bail requirements has fuelled allegations that the criminal justice system is being weaponised to politically incapacitate the lawmaker.
The unfolding case raises fundamental questions about whether Nigeria’s chief law officer should exercise the powers of the state in a criminal matter arising from a political dispute involving a former private client and whether sufficient safeguards exist to prevent real or perceived conflicts of interest in the exercise of federal prosecutorial powers.
It has also raised concerns about the unexplained transfer of the case during the cross-examination of Onyejeocha, the reassignment of the matter to a judge whose name allegedly appears in documents forming part of the case history and the imposition of bail conditions requiring two separate billion-naira properties in only two elite Abuja districts.
The criminal trial of Ogah remains ongoing, but the allegations surrounding the handling of the case are increasingly placing the conduct of the Attorney-General’s office and the administration of the trial under public scrutiny.
(SaharaReporters)
