Forgery Trial: Court grants Mike Ozekhome permission for six-week medical trip to UK

The Federal High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has granted Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mike Ozekhome permission for a six-week medical trip to the United Kingdom, adjourning his forgery and impersonation trial until September 28. The decision by Justice Chizoba Oji came after the prosecution did not oppose the application, which sought the temporary release of Ozekhome's international passport. This development highlights the court's discretion in balancing a defendant's right to medical care with the imperative of expeditious trial proceedings, particularly in high-profile criminal cases. The court mandated the return of Ozekhome's passport by August 26, ensuring accountability while accommodating his health needs.

In a significant procedural development, the Federal High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on July 2, 2026, granted a request by prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome, to embark on a six-week medical trip to the United Kingdom. This decision, delivered by Justice Chizoba Oji, saw the adjournment of Ozekhome's ongoing trial for alleged forgery and impersonation until September 28, 2026. The application for the temporary release of his international passport for medical reasons was notably unopposed by the prosecution, representing the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

This ruling underscores the Nigerian judiciary's approach to balancing the constitutional rights of defendants, including the right to adequate medical attention, against the public interest in the swift dispensation of justice. The case itself, involving allegations of forgery and impersonation related to a property dispute in the United Kingdom, has garnered considerable public attention due to the high profile of the defendant. The court's decision to grant the medical leave, coupled with strict conditions for the return of the passport, provides a pertinent example of judicial discretion in managing complex criminal proceedings.

This article will delve into the legal framework governing adjournments in Nigerian criminal trials, analyze the implications of the court's decision in this specific context, and discuss the broader considerations for legal practitioners navigating similar applications for high-profile clients.

The legal landscape for criminal trials in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. The ACJA, in particular, aims to promote efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, and protection of the rights and interests of suspects and defendants. While the ACJA emphasizes day-to-day trial in criminal matters, it also recognizes circumstances where adjournments may be granted.

Adjournments in criminal proceedings are not merely procedural formalities but are fundamental to ensuring fair trial principles, including allowing parties adequate time for preparation, securing witnesses, or addressing unforeseen circumstances such as medical emergencies. The grant or refusal of an adjournment is a judicial discretion that must be exercised judiciously and judicially, considering the interest of justice and the constitutional right of every person charged with a criminal offence to be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence. Courts typically require sufficient reasons for an adjournment, often supported by evidence, especially in cases of illness or injury.

In the present case, Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is facing a 12-count charge of forgery and impersonation alongside his co-defendant, Ponfa Useni. The charges, filed by the AGF, stem from a dispute over property ownership in the United Kingdom, where they are accused of conspiring to make a false Nigerian passport and using it to claim a property. The prosecution in Nigeria followed a London tribunal's judgment that blocked Ozekhome's bid to claim the property. The defendants had been arraigned on February 27, 2026, and granted bail, with a condition to submit their passports to the court.

The Federal High Court's decision to grant Mike Ozekhome's request for a medical trip aligns with established principles of criminal procedure in Nigeria, which recognize the necessity of adjournments under certain circumstances. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, while promoting expeditious trials, implicitly allows for adjournments when justified. A key factor in the court's decision was the unopposed nature of the application by the prosecution. This lack of opposition signals that the prosecution was satisfied with the medical grounds presented and the proposed conditions for the trip, thereby minimizing potential arguments about delaying tactics or prejudice to the state's case.

Courts generally require medical evidence to support applications for adjournments on health grounds. While the specific details of Ozekhome's medical condition were not extensively publicized in the reports, the court's approval suggests that the provided medical certificate or report met the necessary standards, outlining the need for foreign medical attention and the expected duration. The judge, Justice Chizoba Oji, demonstrated a balanced exercise of discretion by granting the leave while imposing a clear condition for the return of the international passport by August 26, 2026. This condition serves to ensure the defendant's return to face trial and maintains the court's control over the proceedings, mitigating the risk of flight or undue delay.

The case also highlights the practical challenges in managing high-profile criminal trials, where defendants often have the resources to seek specialized medical care abroad. While some critics might perceive such grants as preferential treatment, the legal principle remains that every defendant, regardless of status, is entitled to adequate medical attention. The court's role is to ensure that such requests are genuine and do not unduly obstruct justice. The fact that the prosecution had initially withheld the defendants' passports, only to be ordered by the court to produce them, underscores the court's oversight in ensuring compliance with bail conditions and facilitating legitimate applications.

The charges of forgery and impersonation, stemming from a complex international property dispute, add a layer of intricacy to the trial. The six-week medical leave and subsequent adjournment until September 28, 2026, will inevitably extend the duration of the trial. However, this extension is deemed necessary to uphold the defendant's right to health, a fundamental aspect of fair trial principles. The court's decision reflects a pragmatic approach to judicial administration, acknowledging that a defendant's health can directly impact their ability to participate effectively in their defence.

Comparative legal systems also recognize the importance of medical grounds for adjournments. Jurisdictions often require detailed medical evidence, including a prognosis and an explanation of how the condition prevents participation in trial. The Nigerian court's approach, particularly with the prosecution's non-objection and the imposition of conditions for passport return, aligns with international best practices in balancing individual rights with judicial efficiency.

The Federal High Court's decision to grant Mike Ozekhome a six-week medical leave to the UK, coupled with the adjournment of his forgery and impersonation trial, serves as a significant precedent for legal practitioners in Nigeria. It reaffirms that while the judiciary is committed to the speedy dispensation of justice, it will not compromise on a defendant's fundamental right to health and adequate medical care. The unopposed nature of the application by the prosecution was a critical factor, indicating a consensus on the legitimacy of the medical grounds presented.

For legal professionals, this case underscores the importance of meticulously preparing applications for adjournments on medical grounds, ensuring they are supported by robust medical evidence and presented with clear conditions for the defendant's return. It also highlights the court's judicious exercise of discretion in balancing competing interests, maintaining control over the defendant through passport conditions, and ensuring the eventual continuation of the trial. Practitioners should advise clients that while medical needs are recognized, the court will expect accountability and adherence to stipulated conditions. The resumption of the trial on September 28, 2026, will be closely watched to observe the further progression of this high-profile case.