The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has formally arraigned Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome, over alleged fraud relating to a London property.
The anti-graft agency filed a three-count criminal charge against the senior lawyer at the Abuja High Court on January 16, 2026. The charge, marked FCT/HC/CR/010/26, was presented by Osuobeni Akponimisingha, Head of the ICPC’s High Profile Prosecution Department, and named Ozekhome as the sole defendant.
According to the ICPC, Ozekhome, 68, of No. 53 Nile Street, Maitama, Abuja, allegedly received ownership of House 79, Randall Avenue, London NW2 7SX, in August 2021 from one Mr Shani Tali. The commission described the act as a felony, citing Section 13 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
In a second count, the senior lawyer was accused of allegedly forging a Nigerian passport—bearing the name Shani Tali—to support his claim to the London property. The ICPC said the action was intended to facilitate fraud and falls under Sections 363 and 364 of the Penal Code, CAP 532, Laws of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, 2006.
The third count alleged that Ozekhome dishonestly used the forged passport to substantiate his claim to the property, fully aware that the document was false. The offence, the commission noted, is punishable under Section 366 of the same Penal Code.
The ICPC attached several exhibits to support the charges, including judgment in case REF/2023/0155 dated September 11, 2025, an extra-judicial statement by Ozekhome dated January 12, 2026, and interim forfeiture proceedings concerning the London property at the Federal High Court. Additional evidence included a letter dated December 18, 2025, passport data, and other relevant documents.
Witnesses listed to testify against the SAN include ICPC investigators Mr Wakili Musa, Mr Tosin Olayiwola, Mr Ebenezer Nduo, and Ms Blessing Monokpo. A representative of the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) is also expected to give evidence, although their name was not disclosed in the proof of evidence.
As at the time of filing, the case had not been assigned to a judge.
