By Jane Okafor, Abuja
Days after the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, announced the termination of Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor’s services as his personal lawyer and directed him to stop representing him, his family and IPOB in any capacity, Ejiofor has issued a fresh statement insisting he had already withdrawn from Kanu’s legal representation nearly three years ago.
In a statement titled “Setting the Record Straight: I Personally Withdrew from Nnamdi Kanu’s Legal Representation in December 2023,” shared on his Facebook on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, Ejiofor dismissed suggestions that he remained Kanu’s counsel until the recent letter terminating his services.
He maintained that he voluntarily disengaged from representing Kanu in December 2023, stressing that his subsequent legal work had been strictly on behalf of IPOB and not its detained leader.
“For the avoidance of doubt, and for the sake of clarity, I wish to state unequivocally that I personally disengaged myself from the legal representation of Nnamdi Kanu in any capacity since December 2023, long before his eventual conviction and the subsequent sentence to life imprisonment,” Ejiofor stated.
According to him, although he ceased acting as Kanu’s personal lawyer, his law firm remained under a valid retainership as solicitors to IPOB, during which it secured the discharge and acquittal of more than 200 alleged IPOB members in courts across Abuja, Ebonyi and Abia states between December 2023 and 2025.
“These are not matters founded on hearsay or conjecture. The records are matters of public knowledge and are readily verifiable,” he said.
Ejiofor further argued that Kanu never personally appointed him as solicitor to IPOB, saying his involvement was limited to introducing him in his capacity as personal counsel.
He insisted that after his withdrawal in December 2023, he neither represented Kanu privately nor acted for his family.
“Furthermore, and for the avoidance of any further doubt, therefore, I reiterate that from December 2023 to date, I have not represented Nnamdi Kanu in any capacity whatsoever, whether as his private counsel, family lawyer, or otherwise. Any attempt to suggest the contrary is, at best, a deliberate distortion of the facts and, at worst, a calculated narrative designed to serve ulterior and mischievous purposes,” he stated.
The senior lawyer also disclosed that IPOB had reaffirmed his law firm’s appointment as its legal representatives, maintaining that the relationship remained valid and could not be altered by what he described as the actions of the group’s “former leaders.”
“It is equally important to place on record that IPOB, as an organisation, has today reaffirmed our standing as its solicitors and legal representatives. That professional relationship is founded upon a continuing mandate and cannot be retrospectively altered, invalidated, or otherwise dictated by its former leaders,” he added.
Ejiofor also questioned the authenticity of communications purportedly issued by inmates without proper authorization, citing provisions of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act.
He argued that any communication said to originate from a convict or inmate must bear the authentication of the officer in charge of the correctional facility before it can be regarded as valid.
“This clarification is particularly important and should serve as a cautionary reminder to practitioners who are often quick to rush to report what are clearly unauthorised communications purportedly emanating from inmates, without first appreciating or verifying the applicable legal and administrative procedures governing such communications,” he said.
The latest development comes days after Kanu, in a letter dated July 22, 2026, formally terminated Ejiofor’s services as his personal lawyer, barred him from representing IPOB in any capacity, and warned him against disclosing any privileged information obtained during his period of retainership.
The exchange has deepened the public dispute between the detained IPOB leader and his former counsel over the question of legal representation and authority within the separatist organisation.
