Nnamdi Kanu Sacks Personal Lawyer Ejiofor

Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally ended his relationship with his longtime lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor.

He directed him to immediately stop acting on behalf of him, his family and the pro-Biafra movement.

Kanu conveyed the decision in a letter dated July 22, 2026, from the Sokoto Correctional Centre, where he is being held.

In the letter, Kanu stated that he had previously informed Ejiofor verbally that his services were no longer required, adding that the latest correspondence was meant to officially document the decision.

“Your engagement as my personal legal representative was previously terminated by me through direct verbal communication, upon which you ceased acting in that capacity. This letter serves, in part, as a formal written confirmation of that earlier termination,” Kanu wrote.

The IPOB leader also withdrew every authority previously granted to Ejiofor to represent him or speak on behalf of his family and the organisation.

Kanu maintained that under the IPOB Code of Conduct, the authority to appoint, suspend or remove principal officers and representatives rests solely with the leader of the movement, except where such powers have been formally delegated.

He stressed that no committee, former official or individual has the authority to retain legal representatives for IPOB outside the provisions of the group’s constitution.

The separatist leader directed Ejiofor to stop issuing statements, granting interviews, publishing press releases or making social media posts in the name of IPOB, himself or members of his family.

He further instructed the lawyer to discontinue presenting himself as counsel to IPOB or its leader before any court, institution or public gathering.

Kanu also asked Ejiofor to take steps to withdraw from any legal matter where he remains listed as counsel on behalf of him or the organisation.

According to the letter, all forms of representation previously granted to the lawyer have been revoked with immediate effect.

Kanu equally raised concerns about confidential information obtained during the period Ejiofor served as his lawyer.

He warned that such information must not be disclosed, shared or used without his written approval, except where required by law or ordered by a competent court.

“Any unauthorised disclosure, publication, exploitation or misuse of confidential or privileged information acquired during the course of your retainer may constitute professional misconduct and may attract disciplinary proceedings before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), in addition to any other legal remedies available,” Kanu stated.

However, the latest fallout between Kanu and Ejiofor comes barely weeks after members of the IPOB leader’s legal team publicly explained the circumstances that led to the lawyer’s removal from active involvement in Kanu’s defence.

On June, Barrister Christopher Chidera, a member of Kanu’s defence team, disclosed that the IPOB leader decided to disengage Ejiofor following disagreements over the handling of key legal issues in his case.

Chidera alleged that several legal mistakes committed by the former legal team contributed to prolonging Kanu’s detention and weakened opportunities that could have advanced his legal battle.

According to him, concerns were raised over the handling of proceedings that followed the Court of Appeal judgment delivered in October 2022.

“As a legal practitioner and public affairs analyst committed to constitutional supremacy, fair hearing, and respect for court orders, I write on the circumstances surrounding the disengagement of Ifeanyi Ejiofor from Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team,” Chidera said.

He argued that crucial legal objections were not pursued at critical stages of the matter, a situation he claimed affected the trajectory of the case.

Chidera further accused the former counsel of engaging in actions that created tensions within Kanu’s family and supporters.

He maintained that the decision to remove Ejiofor was taken after extensive concerns were raised regarding the management of the legal strategy surrounding the IPOB leader’s trial.