A major test for the Nigerian judiciary was the March 20, 2025 judgment of Justice Akpan Okon Ebong of the FCT High Court, who struck out a case filed by Mr. Femi Falana SAN, purporting to act on a fiat donated to him by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi SAN, against the Chairman of Zinox Technologies, Mr. Leo Stan Ekeh, and 12 others.
In the certified true copy of the judgment, Justice Ebong ruled as follows:
“It is my conclusion based on the foregoing that this charge (No. FCT/HC/CR/985/2024, Federal Republic of Nigeria v Leo Stan Ekeh and 12 ORS) constitutes a gross abuse of court process and is liable to dismissal. I accordingly hereby dismiss it.”
The revered Justice Ebong further said:
“One intriguing aspect of this matter is that none of the law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation of the nominal complainant’s (Mr. Joseph) numerous petitions has found merit in any of his allegations against the defendants. When called upon before Senchi J. (Justice Danlami Z. Senchi) to prove his allegations to the court, he failed to turn up. One then wonders on what premise he wants to maintain this campaign of persecution against the defendants.”
Even without the judge saying it, this case is an odious embarrassment to the judiciary in all ramifications.
As the judge courageously noted, this is nothing but a campaign of persecution embarked upon since 2013 by Joseph.
The use of the phrases “abuse of court process” and “campaign of persecution” by the judge speaks volumes of the intent of Joseph and his supporters, especially Falana. What the judge did not say, though inferred, is that this is a case of blackmail.
If it is not, why did Falana include persons not linked to the case? Why did he focus on Zinox and Leo Stan Ekeh even when they have no bearing on the transaction?
It is high time that the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) began to discipline lawyers who deploy subterfuge, deceit and blackmail to obfuscate facts, a tendency that has the coloration of abuse of court process and judicial persecution.
What led to the case!
In the suit No. FCT/HC/CR/985/24 filed in November 2024, Falana, on behalf of his client, Benjamin Joseph, the CEO of Citadel Oracle Concept Limited, an Ibadan-based computer firm, filed charges against Ekeh, nine other individuals, and three companies before the Federal High Court in Abuja for allegedly diverting N162,247,513.80 being payment for laptop supply contract at the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Headquarters which Technology Distribution Limited (now TD Africa), the biggest tech equipment distributor in sub-Saharan Africa supplied on behalf of Citadel in 2012.
For clarity, Citadel could not finance the contract. It approached Technology Distributions, which extended a credit facility to Citadel on agreed profit-sharing terms.
However, when payment was made by FIRS, Joseph wanted to divert the money to himself but failed.
He hopped from the courts to investigating institutions, including the police, but on all occasions, he was unable to prove his case.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment, therefore, is a testament to the integrity of the judiciary under Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the Chief Justice of the Federation, and the high level of judicial thoroughness and mindset of audacity for which Justice Ebong is famed.
It bears re-stating that this was the third time this case was dismissed by different judges at different times.
But despite two previous dismissals of the case, Falana, in a manner both strange to law and curious to logic, returned to court seeking adjudication on the same matter two eminent judges had dismissed.
Yet despite Joseph’s failures at the courts, Falana was bent on pursuing a case already declared to be standing on nothing but deceit.
At this point, it was looking like forum-shopping and judicial persecution, not prosecution, by Falana and his client, Benjamin Joseph, in an apparent scheme to maliciously damage the reputation of the defendants, some of whom had no connection whatsoever with the transaction.
Justice Ebong showed exemplary judicial courage, dignity and forthrightness in the matter, as reflected in his judgment.
A cursory look at the judgment showed that Justice Ebong had considered the outcome of previous cases and petitions filed by Mr. Joseph on this same matter both at the courts and even with the police. Expectedly, none of his filings and petitions was in his favour, an indexation of the Latin phrase “quod non est verum, non est verum”, meaning “what is not true is not true.”
A case roundly dismissed by two High Courts, a case in which the police prosecuted Joseph for false information for which the court imposed N20 million damages on him; a matter in which the FIRS vide a letter to Joseph’s first counsel, Afe Babalola & Co, dated February 11, 2014 (FIRS/PD/GDS/2559) and signed by one Idrissa Kogo, Head Legal Department, punctured the lies of Joseph that he was not aware of any such contract under disputation, cannot suddenly be established as true. Whatever is built on deceit will crash like a pack of cards.
Question: Is Falana, a senior lawyer, a public legal figure in Nigeria whom many junior lawyers look up to as role model, not aware of these dismissals of the same case he has been trying to persuade the courts to rule in favour of his client?
Is Falana not aware as Justice Ebong noted that “none of the law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation of Mr. Joseph’s numerous petitions has found merit in any of his allegations against the defendants,” and that even “when called upon before Senchi J. (Justice Danlami Z. Senchi) to prove his said allegations to the court, he failed to turn up in court.”
As Justice Ebong put it, “One then wonders on what premise he (Joseph) wants to maintain this campaign of persecution against the defendants.”
Did Falana not do due diligence on his client? Is he not aware of the various failings of Joseph to prove his case in other courts?
Falana may need to approach Mr. Afe Babalola SAN, a very senior legal luminary, to be briefed on why his chamber withdrew from the case. Why, then, would he gleefully lead his client on a voyage described by the judge as an “abuse of court process?”
As a senior lawyer, Falana should know that it is dangerous for a lawyer, any lawyer, not to do due diligence on a client.
Lawyers who fail to do so suffer disgrace before the judge and in the eyes of other stakeholders involved in the matter. Junior lawyers should learn from this case.
On no account should any lawyer return to a court of coordinate jurisdiction on the same matter that had been dismissed, in this case, twice. That is abuse of court process as eloquently captured by the Supreme Court in Dike GEO Motors Ltd & Anor v. Allied Signal Inc. & Anor (2024).
According to the apex court, “the term ‘abuse of court process’ is generally applied to proceedings that are wanting in bona fides, frivolous, oppressive and vexatious. It may also mean the improper use of court process which involves malice, deliberateness, and desire to misuse or pervert the process of the court or system of administration of justice to the annoyance or embarrassment and irritation of an opponent.”
It is hard to imagine that a lawyer would keep juggling the same case from court to court in the hope that what has been established by other courts as baseless and frivolous and by investigative authorities as blatant falsehood would be adjudged as the truth.
Or was it a case of ‘malice, deliberateness and desire to misuse or pervert the process of the court or system of administration of justice to the annoyance or embarrassment and irritation of the defendants’?
Why is Falana not bothered about the reputational damage he has caused the defendants; the emotional pain and character assassination they have suffered on account of his blind resort to forum-shopping.
This judgment creates another legal vista that may likely see the defendants suing Falana and Joseph for defamation of character and reputational damage especially given that some of the defendants are global individuals and corporates with international partners.
*Odumosu, a public policy analyst, writes from Lagos
