Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is in the custody of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and is expected to face fresh charges, according to senior intelligence sources familiar with the matter.
The development follows proceedings earlier on Tuesday at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, where a three-count forgery charge against the 68-year-old lawyer was struck out after the Federal Government applied to withdraw the case.
The charges had been filed by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in connection with a dispute over a property in London. Prosecutors alleged that Ozekhome forged documents and fraudulently used false instruments in relation to a claim of ownership of a house in north-west London.
The criminal proceedings, instituted under Charge No: FCT/HC/CR/010/26, were brought in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The office of the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, took over prosecution of the matter from the ICPC on 26 January.
When the case came up for arraignment before Justice Peter Kekemeke in Maitama, counsel to the Attorney General, Rotimi Oyedepo, moved an application to withdraw the charge.
He informed the court that the Attorney General’s office required additional time to review and consolidate issues arising from investigations conducted by different agencies. Following the application, Justice Kekemeke struck out the suit.
Although the case was withdrawn, Ozekhome remains in EFCC custody. A senior intelligence source confirmed that he is expected to be re-arraigned on fresh charges.
Before the withdrawal, Ozekhome faced three counts bordering on alleged receipt of property abroad, forgery and the use of false documents.
Count One alleged that in August 2021, while in London, Ozekhome received a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2 7SX, purportedly given to him by one Mr Shani Tali. Prosecutors stated that the act constituted a felony under Section 13, punishable under Section 24 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.
Count Two accused him of making a false document in Abuja during the same period, specifically by allegedly forging a Nigerian passport numbered A07535463 in the name of Shani Tali. The prosecution alleged that the passport was created to support a claim of ownership over the London property, contrary to Section 363 and punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code applicable in the Federal Capital Territory.
Count Three alleged that Ozekhome used the falsified passport as if it were genuine, despite knowing it to be false, thereby committing an offence under Section 366 of the same Penal Code.
The charge sheet, dated 16 January 2026, was signed by Dr Akponimisingha and Ngozi Onwuka, an Assistant Chief Legal Officer at the ICPC headquarters, acting on behalf of the Attorney General of the Federation.
At an earlier sitting, Oyedepo had told the court that the matter would be prosecuted with “the highest standard of efficiency, effectiveness, diligence and compliance with due process of law”.
The Nigerian charges followed a ruling in September 2025 by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in the United Kingdom concerning the disputed London property.
The case, filed under reference REF/2023/0155, listed Tali Shani as applicant and Ozekhome as respondent. The tribunal examined competing claims over the house, which was purchased in 1993 and registered under the name “Tali Shani”.
In a decision delivered by Judge Ewan Paton, the tribunal dismissed claims advanced by Ozekhome and by individuals presenting themselves as “Mr” and “Ms” Tali Shani. The tribunal held that neither claimant had established a legitimate entitlement to the property.
The dispute also involved the late Jeremiah Useni, a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, senator and senior military officer.
According to the tribunal’s findings, the property was beneficially owned by Useni, who had used the name “Tali Shani” in connection with the asset. The judge stated that a number of documents presented during the proceedings had been produced or procured by forgery or deception.
“I find that a large number of documents in this case have been produced or procured by forgery or deception,” Judge Paton said in the written ruling, referring to identity documents, witness statements and related materials submitted to the tribunal.
The tribunal concluded that neither “Mr” nor “Ms” Tali Shani existed as genuine persons and that the property was beneficially owned by Useni under an assumed name.
During the UK proceedings, Ozekhome maintained that he received the property as a gift in 2021 from “Mr Tali Shani”, who claimed to have held powers of attorney over the house. The individual identified as “Mr Shani” testified that he had owned the property since 1993 and had later appointed Useni as his property manager.
Lawyers representing a purported “Ms Tali Shani” tendered documentary materials including an obituary notice, a National Identification Number card, an ECOWAS passport and a telephone number in support of her claim.
The tribunal assessed the documentary evidence before reaching its conclusion.
The striking out of the case at the Federal Capital Territory High Court does not prevent prosecutors from filing a new charge based on the same or related facts. As of Tuesday evening, no fresh charge had been publicly filed.
The EFCC has not issued a formal statement detailing the anticipated new counts. Ozekhome’s legal representatives have yet to release a detailed response regarding his continued detention.
Under Nigerian law, a suspect may be detained pending investigation subject to constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight. Any subsequent arraignment would be conducted before a court of competent jurisdiction in Abuja.
The case spans proceedings in both Nigeria and the United Kingdom and concerns allegations relating to property ownership, identity documents and the use of official instruments. Further developments are expected once prosecuting authorities complete their review and determine the next procedural steps.
Discussion about this post