RESPONSE TO PROF. MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN & BARR. IFEANYI EJIOFOR — LINE-BY-LINE REBUTTAL
RESPONSE TO PROF. MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN & BARR. IFEANYI EJIOFOR — LINE-BY-LINE REBUTTAL
You set out a defensive narrative. I will take it apart — calmly, legally and precisely — so any neutral reader (or judge) can see where the paper-trail ends and the law-practice failures begin.
- “We immediately applied for the Certified True Copy (CTC)… received on 16 October 2022.”
Reality check / Reply: requesting and obtaining a CTC is a weak, ministerial, necessary step — but it is NOT an execution step. Lawyers and the public routinely ask for CTCs. The question is not whether you obtained the CTC: it is what you did WITH it IMMEDIATELY to compel compliance with a binding court order. A CTC is evidence of the judgment; it is not a substitute for urgent enforcement proceedings.
What should have happened simultaneously on 16–17 October: while waiting for the CTC you (Ozekhome/Ifeanyi Ejiofor) should already have been in court seeking immediate enforcement: (a) an urgent, ex parte or inter partes application for the immediate execution of the judgment and an order requiring the custodial authority to produce the detainee, and/or (b) a writ/habeas corpus or equivalent to compel production. Merely filing for a CTC and sending letters to the AG/SSS is perfunctory — paperwork, not execution.
- “We promptly wrote letters to the Attorney-General and to the Director General of the SSS, urging compliance.”
Reality check / Reply: letters to the AG/SSS are worthless, polite, administrative steps. They are not enforcement. State actors ignore letters with impunity — letters do not coerce. In any case where a person is discharged by court order but remains physically detained, the lawful, standard response is to apply to the court (or registrar) for immediate execution and to move for committal for contempt against defiant officers — not to rely on correspondence as a substitute for coercive process.
Point of Law: If DSS refuses to comply with a court order, the remedy is to return to the court and obtain an order to show cause and, if necessary, an order of committal for contempt against responsible officers. That was not shown in your paper trail.
- “Following further delay, a Fundamental Rights suit was filed.” (stamped 21 Oct 2022)
Reality check / Reply: filing a Fundamental Rights suit is appropriate in principle, but by itself it is not a substitute for immediate enforcement. The crucial questions are: when exactly was the FR suit presented, was an ex parte urgent release order sought in that suit, and was any interim order obtained and served on the custodial authority on an emergency basis? The documents you attach show the FR originating process — but not that an urgent interlocutory order for immediate physical release was obtained and enforced before the Government secured a stay.
Practical point: A Fundamental Rights suit is slow. Where there is a live, binding judgment that has been flouted, a good lawyer must pursue both immediate enforcement in the national courts (show-cause/committal, habeas corpus, enforcement motions) and parallel Fundamental Rights litigation. You appear to have prioritised paper filings over immediate coercive process.
- “The Federal Government filed an appeal and an application to stay execution. We filed a counter-affidavit; the application was heard and the Court delivered a ruling staying execution on 28 October 2022.”
Reality check / Reply: opposing a stay by filing a counter-affidavit is procedural opposition — not an aggressive enforcement strategy. The central point is this: if the Court of Appeal had delivered an order discharging and acquitting the Kanu on 13 October, the immediate focus of any good counsel should have been to enforce the discharge before any stay could bite — not to fight a stay in conventional affidavit battles only after delay had allowed the respondent to obtain a hearing and a stay.
Specific criticisms:
Where an adverse interlocutory application is likely, the correct tactical response is to apply for urgent execution and for priority hearing on any stay application; counsel should ask the court to refuse a stay or to require the respondent to show cause why the execution should be stayed — with speedy hearing within 24–48 hours. Merely filing a counter-affidavit and waiting for a hearing played into the Government’s hands.
Once the Court stayed execution, you needed immediate parallel remedies (emergency application to the Supreme Court for interlocutory relief, urgent committal for contempt proceedings against officials, or provisional measures from regional bodies) — not only an appeal on grounds of technical application of Civil Procedure Rules.
- “We immediately applied for the CTC of the 28 October ruling; the CTC was available on 3 November and a Notice of Appeal was filed the same day.”
Reality check / Reply: waiting until 3 November to lodge formal appellate steps is explainable if required by rules, but the vehicle you chose (a Notice of Appeal against the stay) is appellate — not executive. By the time the CTC of the stay was available, the Government had already obtained suspension of the Appeal Court’s discharge. Appeals are for legal correction; they do not, by themselves, put the client on the street. Once again your response was appellate paperwork rather than enforcement calibrated for emergency.
Point of Law: if a stay is wrongly granted — and you now contend it was — the proper immediate step is to seek urgent suspension of the stay (interlocutory relief) and simultaneous enforcement proceedings. Filing ordinary notices of appeal without urgent ex parte relief is insufficient where liberty is at stake.
- “Our letters and the Fundamental Rights suit show we took steps — the allegation that we did nothing is a lie.”
Reality check / Reply: you did something, yes — you filed documents. But the relevant standard is effectiveness not volume of documents: did those steps secure release? No. A lawyer’s primary duty when a client is unlawfully detained despite a favourable judgment is to secure physical release, by use of coercive court powers if necessary. You have not shown any evidence you sought or obtained:
an order compelling the custodial authority to produce the detainee;
an order committing responsible officers for contempt for refusing to obey the discharge; or
immediate interlocutory mandates forcing the SSS to release pending appeal.
If you have those coercive orders and executed returns of service/execution, produce them. Otherwise documents that amount to letters and notices of appeal are legally inadequate.
- “We challenged the stay at the Supreme Court on the ground that it relied on Civil Procedure Rules (Ground One).”
Reality check / Reply: litigating the correctness of a stay on procedural grounds at the Supreme Court is a legitimate avenue — but it is retroactive relief. When time is liberty, retroactive correction is cold comfort. The criticism is not that you did not fight at the appellate level; the criticism is that you did not contemporaneously calibrate your responses to secure physical release by using the immediate enforcement tools available to a practitioner of constitutional and criminal procedure. Appellate relief corrects error; enforcement compels obedience.
- Your rhetorical straw-men about “mobilising armed groups” and attacking critics as “criminal elements.”
Reality check / Reply: this is a diversion and an ad hominem smear. It proves nothing. The question for you as counsel is: can you demonstrate, with court orders and executed processes, that you used the coercive powers of the court to get your client out of custody? If your answer is “yes,” publish the orders, the processes, the returns of service, the affidavits of sheriffs or marshals proving enforcement. If your answer is “no,” stop pretending that rhetoric substitutes for results.
SUMMARY — WHAT YOU DID NOT DO (BUT COULD/SHOULD HAVE DONE IMMEDIATELY)
Immediate enforcement application on 13–16 October — an urgent application for execution of the Appeal Court judgment and an order requiring the custodial authority to produce the detainee for immediate release.
Writ / Habeas Corpus — a direct, urgent habeas corpus or production order requesting the custodial authority to show lawful cause for further detention, with an order for release if no lawful cause exists.
Show-cause / Committal proceedings — where officers flout a judgment, obtain a show-cause order and, if non-compliance persists, move for committal for contempt against those officers.
Urgent interlocutory relief in the Supreme Court — apply for suspension of any stay and for immediate release pending determination (provisional/interlocutory relief), given the clear constitutional right to liberty.
Immediate service and return — when the CTC was received on 16 October, serve it that day with a certified application for enforcement and obtain a signed order of the court for production/release; obtain and file proof of service (affidavits of service) showing SSS/AG were served and refused.
Parallel international/regional emergency measures — notify and seek provisional measures from appropriate regional human-rights bodies if domestic execution fails — a step for which evidence of prompt domestic enforcement attempts strengthens the case.
Public record of attempts at enforcement — affidavits of process servers, the Registrar’s entries, and sworn statements of attempts to get compliance would have shown that you did everything reasonable to enforce the judgment. None of those coercive execution returns are produced in your attachments.
CONCLUSION (IN PLAIN TERMS)
Documents showing you requested CTCs, wrote letters and filed appeals are necessary but not sufficient. They are paper trails that demonstrate activity. They do not demonstrate the effective use of the court’s coercive powers to secure the immediate release of a man the Court of Appeal had ordered discharged and acquitted.
If you assert that you did obtain and execute coercive orders (production orders, committal orders, successful service and returns), publish them now — with stamped court processes, affidavits of service, and the minutes/register entries showing attempted and executed enforcement. If you cannot, then accept the plain criticism: you litigated for the record, but you failed to execute the judgment for the client.
Finally, stop hiding behind rhetorical questions and ad hominem invective. Lawyers are judged by results, not by the number of letters they send or the heat of their press statements. If you wish to be judged by results, show the orders and the returns of service that prove you compelled the custodial authority to obey the Court of Appeal. Until then your submission looks like appellate theatre — admirable in word, ineffective in deed.
Hi welcome to my website 