Reported By Mary Udezue | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
A dispute has emerged within pro-Biafra circles and legal commentary in Nigeria after Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor publicly denied receiving ₦10 million as payment for representing detained separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu in court. The lawyer, who previously served as a lead counsel for Kanu and remains associated with legal advocacy surrounding the case, has insisted that his legal services were provided entirely without financial compensation and warned that those spreading contrary claims could face legal consequences.
The controversy erupted following statements issued by representatives of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the separatist organisation founded by Kanu. In a disclosure intended to address internal debates about finances and legal expenditures, IPOB officials claimed that payments had been made to members of Kanu’s legal team, including Ejiofor. According to a statement attributed to the group’s finance directorate, a payment of ₦10 million was allegedly transferred on August 13, 2021, through an account associated with Ejiofor’s chambers. The organisation said the transfer formed part of funds authorised by Kanu himself to support legal services related to his defence in Nigeria’s courts.
IPOB officials also asserted that legal expenses for Kanu’s defence extended beyond this transaction. In a separate clarification, the group said it facilitated a total of $100,000 in legal fees linked to the services of Senior Advocate of Nigeria Mike Ozekhome and Barrister Ejiofor during the course of the trial. The group explained that the funds were transferred in instalments as part of its efforts to secure legal representation for its detained leader.
However, Ejiofor strongly rejected these claims in a public statement released through his social media platforms and legal communication channels. He insisted that his work on Kanu’s case was performed strictly on a pro bono basis and that he had never received professional fees for the representation. According to him, he has repeated this position publicly for several years and has consistently challenged anyone making the allegation to provide verifiable proof of payment.
In his response, the lawyer said he was compelled to address the allegations because repeated claims could eventually create the impression that they were factual if left unanswered. He maintained that no documentary evidence had been produced showing that he personally received payment for his services.
Ejiofor further accused certain individuals of spreading the claims online and demanded that they immediately publish any evidence they claimed to possess. The lawyer said the accusations were not only false but also potentially harmful to the legal process surrounding Kanu’s ongoing case. He warned that failure to substantiate the claims could lead to legal action for defamation.
The dispute has drawn attention because Ejiofor played a prominent role in the legal defence of Nnamdi Kanu during key stages of the case that began after the IPOB leader’s arrest and prosecution by Nigerian authorities. Kanu, a dual British-Nigerian citizen, founded the Indigenous People of Biafra movement and gained prominence through his broadcasts advocating independence for Nigeria’s South-East region. He was first arrested in 2015 on charges including treasonable felony and later fled the country while on bail in 2017 before being re-arrested in 2021 and returned to Nigeria to face further prosecution.
Since then, the legal battle surrounding Kanu has involved multiple court proceedings, appeals and changes within his defence team. At different stages of the trial, several lawyers have participated in the defence strategy, including constitutional law specialists and senior advocates. The complexity of the case and its political significance have also attracted attention from international observers and human-rights organisations.
Within the IPOB movement itself, debates over legal representation and financial transparency have occasionally surfaced. Some members and supporters have demanded clearer explanations of how funds raised for Kanu’s defence were spent, while others have argued that public disputes over finances could weaken the campaign for his release.
The latest disagreement over Ejiofor’s alleged payment illustrates these tensions. IPOB’s finance directorate said its statement was issued in the interest of transparency and accountability regarding funds used for legal services. But Ejiofor maintains that the claims misrepresent his involvement and undermine his professional reputation.
Legal analysts note that disputes over legal fees can become contentious when high-profile political cases attract large public support networks and fundraising efforts. In such situations, conflicting narratives about financial transactions can emerge from different factions or stakeholders.
As of now, no court ruling has been issued regarding the payment dispute itself. The controversy remains largely a public disagreement between Ejiofor and individuals or organisations claiming that funds were transferred to him for his legal work.
Meanwhile, the broader legal proceedings involving Nnamdi Kanu continue to move through Nigeria’s judicial system. The case remains one of the most closely watched legal battles in the country, reflecting the wider political and security tensions surrounding separatist movements and government responses in the South-East region.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments