I welcome the recent public admission by Barrister Aloy Ejimakor clarifying his role in the stalled trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (MNK). His explanation, though intended as a defence of his actions, inadvertently exposes the very ignoble, professionally troubling, and ethically questionable conduct that many of us had long suspected.
For years, the general public believed that the Federal Government was responsible for delaying MNK’s trial. However, by Ejimakor’s own words, it is now evident that the deliberate blocking, frustrating, and successful delay of the trial was orchestrated not by the prosecution but by the defence itself—specifically under his leadership.
This revelation is extraordinary and alarming.
- Duty of Defence Counsel in Criminal Proceedings
A defence lawyer is not an activist, lobbyist, or political envoy. His primary duty is to the court and to the defence of his client, as established in:
Rule 14, Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 2007
Rule 30 RPC 2007
Blocking a trial—especially in a capital matter—violates both obligations and offends the sanctity of legal ethics.
For a lawyer to publicly boast of obstructing the judicial process is nothing short of a self-indictment of professional misconduct.
- Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied – Especially in Capital Cases
The Supreme Court has consistently held that speedy trial is an element of fair hearing (Section 36 Constitution; Ariori v. Elemo; FRN v. Atuche).
In capital offences, opening the defence is crucial. Deliberately delaying the process jeopardises a defendant facing potential death penalty.
Thus, Ejimakor’s admission that he blocked the trial—rather than exposing alleged weaknesses in the prosecution’s case—remains professionally indefensible.
- Political Solutions Are Not the Lawyer’s Job
Political and diplomatic interventions were already championed by respected elder statesmen, including:
Late Chief Mbazulike Amaechi,
Late Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife (Okwadike).
The lawyer’s duties are strictly courtroom-based:
Cross-examination
Evidence presentation
Legal argumentation
Procedural compliance
These duties are reinforced by Rule 15 RPC, which prohibits subordinating legal responsibilities to activism or political theatrics.
Yet Ejimakor appeared more interested in social-media campaigns, press interactions, and street demonstrations than in defending his client before the court.
- Appellate Principles: What Was Not Raised Below Cannot Be Raised on Appeal
The Court of Appeal cannot entertain issues not raised at the High Court (except on pure jurisdiction). Established authorities include:
A-G Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels
Foko v. Foko
Okolo v. UBN
Appellate courts rely solely on the record of proceedings.
What Nigeria and the world saw in court was MNK shouting, “Show me the law!”, in a confused and counterproductive fashion—evidence of a client who lacked proper legal guidance.
- Allowing MNK to Represent Himself Was Gross Negligence
Under:
Section 36(6)(c) Constitution,
Rule 21 RPC 2007,
Okafor v. A-G Anambra State,
an accused person’s right to counsel must be protected, especially in capital cases.
Permitting MNK to represent himself, arriving in court with piles of books—including a Catholic Bible despite identifying as a Jew—reduced the entire process to a spectacle. It was an embarrassing consequence of professional negligence and abandonment of core legal duties.
As a lawyer of 25 years post-call, I have litigated personal matters yet never represented myself in open court. Even in my current civil suit against Guaranty Trust Bank at the FCT High Court, I retained my classmate, Barr. Ifeanyi Nrialike, to represent me—because that is how responsible lawyers behave.
- Ethical Breaches by Barr. Ejimakor
Relevant violations include:
A. Rule 14 & 15 RPC — lack of diligence and competence
He failed to advance his client’s defence in court.
B. Rule 30 RPC — duty to assist the court
He obstructed proceedings instead of aiding speedy justice.
C. Rule 32 RPC — prohibition against misleading the court
His public admission of deliberate delay contradicts courtroom duties.
D. Canon of Legal Ethics — duty not to impede justice
As affirmed in:
R v. Stirland
In Re: A Solicitor
His actions fall squarely into conduct that undermines public confidence in the profession.
- A Lawyer Who Prefers Activism Should Stay Out of the Courtroom
If Ejimakor preferred street protests, media shows, and social-media advocacy, he should have joined activists like Sowore while leaving courtroom work to competent legal practitioners.
The courtroom runs on law, procedure, and evidence—not hashtags, marches or populist rhetoric.
- Final Analysis
In sum:
Barrister Aloy Ejimakor failed woefully in his sacred duty to his client, to the court, and to the profession.
He violated ethical rules, undermined the judicial process, obstructed justice, and left his client exposed and unguided in a capital trial.
I am deeply ashamed of the irresponsible conduct he has now publicly admitted.
The Federal Government—long accused of delaying MNK’s trial—stands exonerated by Ejimakor’s own confession.
History will record that the gravest delays and setbacks in MNK’s trial came from within the defence team, not from the prosecution.
