EXCLUSIVE(SAHARA REPORTERS): AGF Fagbemi Accused of State Power Abuse Against Rep Ogah, Ex-Client Link

Allegations have emerged against Nigeria's Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, claiming he is misusing the significant prosecutorial authority of his office. These claims centre on a criminal case filed against Rt. Hon. Amobi Godwin Ogah, a current member of the House of Representatives. The case is reportedly tied to an intense political disagreement involving a past private client of Fagbemi. Information surrounding the matter has sparked serious concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest, an abuse of prosecutorial powers, judicial fairness, and a perceived effort to sideline Ogah politically through criminal charges and excessive bail terms, particularly as another election period approaches.

The core of this contentious issue lies in Fagbemi's prior professional relationship: before assuming the role of Attorney-General, he acted as the primary legal counsel for Hon. Nkeiruka Onyejeocha during the election petition processes stemming from the 2023 National Assembly elections. Following Fagbemi's appointment as Attorney-General, the federal government's legal apparatus was reportedly activated to pursue a criminal defamation charge against Ogah. This charge relates to statements made in an affidavit linked to the very same election controversy where Fagbemi had previously represented Onyejeocha. This turn of events has fueled accusations that Nigeria's highest legal officer is leveraging state prosecutorial powers to serve the political agenda of a former client.

Furthermore, documents pertaining to the legal proceedings highlight worries that the prosecution itself, along with an unexplained mid-trial transfer of the case, concerns about the newly assigned judge, and unusually severe bail conditions, might collectively serve to remove Ogah from active political life. The genesis of this dispute can be traced back to the election petition hearings involving Ogah and Onyejeocha. Records from that period show that both political figures independently expressed dissatisfaction with the composition of the Election Petition Tribunal panels and separately sought their re-establishment. Consequently, the President of the Court of Appeal approved these requests and reconstituted the panels to allay impartiality concerns. Yet, it is Ogah alone who now faces criminal defamation charges, specifically related to statements within an affidavit that arose from the disagreements over these very panels. This situation begs the question of why a matter originating from complaints about an election litigation process, where both parties raised objections, has led to criminal charges against only one of the involved political figures.

The management of this criminal case has also drawn considerable attention due to the sudden relocation of the case file from its initial presiding judge, Justice Aminu M. Abdullahi. According to records of the proceedings, this transfer occurred precisely when Ogah's legal team was engaged in cross-examining Onyejeocha. The defence reportedly received no prior notification or explanation for this unexpected move. The case was then reallocated to Justice Halilu, who, as indicated in the documents, had previously served on one of the panels that underwent reconstitution following complaints related to the 2023 election dispute between Ogah and Onyejeocha. This reassignment has raised significant eyebrows, primarily because the historical context and makeup of those tribunal panels are integral to the background of the current criminal charge.

Furthermore, Ogah's defence lawyers have voiced strong objections regarding Justice Halilu's ongoing involvement in the case. Documents reveal that the judge's name is mentioned multiple times in materials pertinent to the criminal proceedings, including the police investigation report. Consequently, Ogah's legal representatives contended that Justice Halilu's prior association with events forming the basis of the criminal case could potentially render him a crucial witness. The defence reportedly submitted a formal request to the Chief Judge, seeking the transfer of the case from Justice Halilu's court, citing his earlier engagement in circumstances linked to the dispute. Despite these objections, the judge has continued to oversee the trial, thereby amplifying concerns about the fairness of the hearing and the perception of judicial impartiality in the proceedings.

The controversy escalated significantly when the court imposed exceptionally strict new bail conditions on the federal lawmaker. This occurred despite his defence team asserting that he was already on valid bail, previously granted by the same FCT High Court. Documents show that Ogah had consistently appeared in court since the commencement of the case. His lawyers also highlighted that the Court of Appeal had previously indicated that a new bail application was redundant, as his existing bail remained active. Notwithstanding these arguments, Justice Halilu mandated fresh conditions, demanding that Ogah produce two sureties. Each surety must possess titled property valued at a minimum of ₦1 billion. These properties are strictly required to be situated in either Maitama or Asokoro, two of Abuja's most exclusive and costly neighbourhoods, with their original title documents to be surrendered to the court. Additionally, the court directed the serving lawmaker to deposit his international passport and execute an affidavit pledging good conduct. The defence has challenged the passport restriction, arguing that as a sitting federal lawmaker, Ogah's duties frequently necessitate international travel for legislative and official engagements. The combined impact of this prosecution and the demanding bail terms has intensified claims that the criminal justice system is being deliberately used as a tool to politically disable the lawmaker.

This developing case brings to the forefront critical questions concerning the appropriate scope of Nigeria's chief law officer's authority. Specifically, it probes whether the Attorney-General should wield state powers in a criminal proceeding originating from a political disagreement that involves a former private client. It also questions the adequacy of existing mechanisms to prevent actual or perceived conflicts of interest when federal prosecutorial powers are exercised. Furthermore, the situation has sparked worries regarding the unexplained transfer of the case mid-cross-examination of Onyejeocha, its reassignment to a judge whose name reportedly features in historical case documents, and the imposition of bail conditions demanding two separate properties, each valued at a billion naira, exclusively within two high-end Abuja districts. While Ogah's criminal trial continues, the accusations surrounding its management are increasingly subjecting the actions of the Attorney-General's office and the overall conduct of the trial to intense public examination.