https://www.facebook.com/545392712226923/

Mothers & Sons Law Chamber., Lagos (2026)

14/02/2026

Daniel, I Am Here for Plea Bargaining

Today in court, I witnessed justice negotiate with efficiency, and it came with a side of humor. I was seated quietly at the Bar when a learned colleague leaned toward me and whispered with unusual confidence: “Daniel, I am here for plea bargaining. Hope you know that plea bargaining started from your Delta people.”

I adjusted my wig slightly.

As a proud son of the Niger Delta, I considered whether I should object on grounds of territorial attribution. But before I could frame my reply, his matter was called.

He rose, not with the tension of a contested trial, but with the calm composure of a man who had already negotiated his destiny.

“My Lord, the matter is for plea bargain.”

And just like that, what once shook the nation now sounded as routine as an application for adjournment.

There was a time when plea bargaining in Nigeria was whispered about like a forbidden procedure. It gained prominence during prosecutions by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The conviction of Cecilia Ibru, former Managing Director of Oceanic Bank, marked one of the most publicized early plea agreements.

Then came the era of James Ibori, and suddenly, Delta State was unofficially hailed as the birthplace of negotiated justice in Nigeria. Whether historically accurate or not, this association took root in courtroom folklore.

At the time, critics called it “soft landing justice.” Supporters saw it as pragmatic prosecution.

The public called it many things, most of them unprintable.

What began as controversy eventually found legitimacy. In Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ibori, the Supreme Court affirmed that plea bargaining is not alien to Nigerian law when exercised within constitutional and prosecutorial powers.

Then came statutory codification under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA). Sections 270–277 gave plea bargaining a formal legal foundation.

Today, it is no longer a legal experiment but an established procedure. The law now mandates that the agreement must be voluntary, in writing, and that the accused must understand the consequences. The court must ensure that the agreement serves the interest of justice. In other words, negotiation is allowed, but supervision is mandatory.

As my learned colleague addressed the court, I reflected on how far the doctrine had traveled.

Once controversial, now conventional. Once headline material, now just another item on the cause list.

I looked around the courtroom. No gasps. No raised eyebrows. No whispered outrage. Just quiet acceptance. Perhaps this is how the law evolves, from scandal to statute, from heated debate to settled doctrine. And perhaps my learned colleague was right in one sense: certain high-profile Delta prosecutions accelerated the national conversation that led to legislative reform. If that’s the case, then we must accept that sometimes, legal history carries regional flavor.

By the time proceedings ended, I realized something crucial. The law is not static. It adapts. It absorbs criticism and reforms itself. What matters most is not where a doctrine began, whether in Delta or elsewhere, but whether it serves justice. As we left the courtroom,

I turned to my learned colleague and said, “Next time, please ensure your plea bargain doesn’t come with state attribution.”

He laughed.

Daniel Abraham, Esq.

24/12/2025

ON BECOMING THE UNCLE WE ONCE JUDGED.

As children, we often believed our uncles were wicked. Christmas would come, they would return home, and when there were no gifts, no envelopes, and no surprises, we quietly concluded that they were stingy or uncaring. In our young minds, love and success were measured by what one brought home in December.

With maturity comes perspective. This Christmas, I have come to realise that many of those uncles were not wicked at all. They were simply carrying burdens we were too young to see, navigating responsibilities and pressures that never featured in our childhood understanding.

Today, I find myself in a similar position. Going home is no longer as effortless as it once was, not because there is no affection for home, but because of the weight of expectation attached to certain titles. Once you are called a lawyer, people assume you have arrived. They presume comfort, abundance, and stability, and with that presumption comes expectation.

The reality, however, is more complex. Success is rarely instant. The journey is often slow, demanding, and misunderstood. Many times, you are still building, still struggling, and still finding your footing. In such moments, even the prospect of going home for Christmas can feel more like pressure than celebration.

Seen through this lens, our uncles appear differently. Perhaps they were not wicked when they came home empty handed. Perhaps they were doing the best they could, managing life quietly, and giving what they had in ways we did not yet understand.

This Christmas has taught me empathy. It has reminded me that titles do not erase struggle, and that the absence of gifts does not signify the absence of love. Sometimes, people are simply surviving.

On a lighter note, I trust we are all gearing up for Christmas tomorrow, because I certainly am.

Merry Christmas to everyone.
Daniel Abraham, Esq.💙

18/12/2025

We wrapped it up, bringing that chapter to a close.
To God be the Glory ❤️❤️❤️❤️

18/12/2025

On Change of Counsel and Professional Responsibility in Court Practice

Today’s proceedings in court offered a practical reminder of the balance between a litigant’s constitutional right to legal representation and the professional obligations owed to counsel already on record. When a matter was called, both counsel announced their appearances. It emerged that the claimant had recently retained a new counsel, who approached the court with a motion seeking a change of counsel.

The court, however, declined to entertain the application. His Lordship observed that the motion was procedurally defective, as it failed to reflect the address for service of the previous counsel. The court emphasized that a change of counsel is not a mere formality but a process governed by procedural and ethical considerations. Consequently, the court directed that before the application could be heard, the newly retained counsel must place before the court credible evidence of service on the former counsel, particularly a letter notifying the previous counsel of the change and evidencing service.

In further clarification, the court acknowledged that the right of a litigant to retain counsel of choice is constitutionally guaranteed. Nonetheless, this right does not operate in isolation. Before a client disengages a lawyer, there exists a corresponding obligation to ensure that the lawyer is adequately compensated for professional services already rendered. This requirement, the court noted, safeguards the dignity of the legal profession and promotes fairness within legal practice.

The ruling serves as a timely reminder that while clients are free to change counsel, such liberty must be exercised in compliance with due process and professional ethics. Procedure, as reinforced by the court, remains the handmaiden of justice, ensuring order, respect, and equity in the administration of justice.

Daniel Abraham, Esq.

18/12/2025

Admissibility of Documentary Evidence and Purpose in Court Proceedings

Today’s court proceedings offered a practical illustration of the principle that the admissibility of documentary evidence is closely tied to the purpose for which it is tendered. We accompanied our principal, the Learned Silk, to court, by the time we entered the courtroom, the proceedings had already commenced. The matter is at the stage of examination in chief of the defendant’s witness.

During the testimony, the defendant’s counsel sought to tender a document. This was met with a strong objection from the plaintiff’s counsel, who argued that the document was inadmissible in law, as it was neither signed nor dated and was not addressed to any person. On this basis, counsel urged the court to reject the document.

In response, the defendant’s counsel clarified the limited purpose of the document. He submitted that although the document lacked the formal attributes of signature, date, and addressee, it was not being tendered to establish rights, authority, or compliance. Rather, it was presented solely to demonstrate to the court the nature and appearance of a fencing permit document.

In its ruling, the court overruled the objection and admitted the document as an exhibit. The court held that since the document was tendered merely to show what a fencing permit document looks like, its defects in form did not render it inadmissible for that limited purpose.

The ruling underscores a key principle of evidence: relevance and purpose may, in appropriate circumstances, outweigh formal defects. It serves as a reminder that objections to documentary evidence must be considered in light of the context and the specific use for which the document is tendered, with the overarching aim of doing substantial justice.

Daniel Abraham, Esq.

17/12/2025

Chapter 9 of the Salami Report and the EFCC Chairman’s Personal Vendetta Against Abubakar Malami, SAN: Why Recusal Is Mandatory Under the Law

Press Release

Office of the Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice
Abubakar Malami, SAN

The Office of Abubakar Malami, SAN, issues this follow-up statement to explain, with clarity and restraint, why the continued involvement of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in matters relating to Abubakar Malami, SAN, is legally untenable, morally indefensible, and constitutionally impermissible.

This statement is focused squarely on Chapter 9 of the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry Report and how the unresolved implications of that chapter have now crystallised into what can only be described as a personal vendetta masquerading as law enforcement.

Chapter 9 of the Salami Report: The Root of the Conflict

While serving as Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, supervised the establishment of the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of corruption and abuse of office within the EFCC.

At the material time, the current EFCC Chairman served as Secretary to the Commission.

Chapter 9 of the Salami Report addressed the conduct and responsibilities of senior EFCC officials, particularly those occupying key administrative and decision-making positions within the Commission. The chapter speaks directly to institutional accountability and created personal and professional exposure for certain individuals who are today exercising prosecutorial power over the very Attorney-General to whom the report was submitted.

Viewed against this background, the present actions of the EFCC cannot reasonably be interpreted as neutral law enforcement. They amount to retaliatory persecution driven by historical animosity and personal vendetta.

Why the EFCC Chairman Must Recuse Himself

The law on recusal is settled.

No person is permitted to sit in judgment over a matter in which they have a personal interest or prior exposure. The applicable test is the reasonable apprehension of bias, not proof of actual malice. Where such apprehension exists, recusal is mandatory, not optional.

Any reasonable observer, properly apprised of the facts surrounding Chapter 9 of the Salami Report, would conclude that Abubakar Malami, SAN, cannot receive an impartial investigation or prosecution under the present leadership of the EFCC.

Human Rights Abuses and Trial by Media

The continued handling of this matter has resulted in grave violations, including:
• The violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;
• The violation of the right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution;
• A sustained trial by media through selective leaks and public commentary designed to secure public condemnation before judicial determination.

This approach undermines not only the constitutional rights of Abubakar Malami, SAN, but also the credibility and integrity of Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions.

From Institutional Scrutiny to Personal Vendetta

The present actions of the EFCC under its current leadership exhibit a troubling and consistent pattern:
• Persistent media trials and selective disclosures without due process;
• Restrictions on liberty and harassment without timely arraignment before a court of competent jurisdiction;
• A deliberate attempt to criminalise lawful policy decisions taken in office, rather than identify any clear criminal offence known to law.

Such conduct confirms a shift from institutional accountability to the settlement of personal scores and grievances under the guise of law enforcement.

Our Position Remains Clear

Abubakar Malami, SAN:
• Is ready and willing to submit himself to a neutral and independent investigative process;
• Insists on being tried only before a court of competent jurisdiction;
• Rejects political settlements, intimidation, or compromise.

Our Demands

Accordingly, we reiterate our demand for:
1. The immediate recusal of the EFCC Chairman from all matters relating to Abubakar Malami, SAN;
2. The intervention of the Attorney-General of the Federation to ensure that this matter is transferred to a neutral and independent investigative authority;
3. The prompt institution of charges, if any, before a competent court of law, where evidence — not vendetta — will prevail.

Conclusion

This is not a personal dispute; it is a constitutional issue.

If the EFCC is allowed to function as an instrument for the settlement of personal scores and grievances, then the rule of law itself is imperilled. Abubakar Malami, SAN, will continue to insist on justice according to law and due process, not persecution by power.

17/12/2025

NDDC Ruling: Court Orders FG to Publish Forensic Audit, Grants Agency Independence

FEDERAL HIGH COURT
YENAGOA

1. Orders the Federal government to publish NDDC Forensic Audit Report
2. That NDDC should be an independent Agency NOT under the supervision of any Agency or Ministry
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the government from comtituting any sole Administratorship on NDDC
4. That the sole administrator begins from Prof. Nelson Brambaifa till day should give a public account from all the monies allocated and accrued to NDDC

NOTE PARTIES

APPLICANTS
The Claimants are Barr. Odighonin Adienbo (for herself and on behalf of the Wailing Women of the Niger Delta),
2. The Integrity Friends for Truth and Peace Initiative TIFPI...led by Livingstone Wechie and Others
Vs.

1. The Attorney General of the Federation
2. Niger Delta Development Commission NDDC........RESPONDENTS

16/12/2025

Today in court, I felt the quiet confidence of a Senior Counsel. It was one of those moments that remind a young lawyer why the journey matters.

This year, after my call to the Bar, two new sets of lawyers joined the profession, the September and November calls. I was present on different occasions when members of both sets were formally introduced in open court. On an earlier day, my boss, the Learned Silk, introduced a colleague called in September. Today again, one of those called in November was introduced before the court.

While welcoming the new wigs to the Bar, my Lord, made a remark that struck deeply. His Lordship advised the young lawyers to strive for the top, noting that there is ample space at the top, while the bottom is always crowded. The words were simple, yet profound.

Instantly, my mind searched for meaning. I thought of examples that mirrored His Lordship’s wisdom. For a brief moment, Arsenal came to mind, often described as lonely at the top. I quickly dismissed the thought and turned my attention back to the courtroom. I scanned through the Bar and observed that no SAN was present. In that moment, the lesson became clear.

Excellence is not overcrowded. Commitment, discipline, and consistency are rare. The higher one goes, the fewer the number. Indeed, there is space at the top, and the journey upward is one worth pursuing.

Daniel Abraham, Esq.

16/12/2025

Recall that following the commencement of enforcement of the tinted glass permit regulation by the NPF, the NBA instituted an action at the FHC challenging the legality of the said regulation. Subsequently, and, as a matter of administrative discretion, the NPF temporarily suspended enforcement. Yesterday, however, the NPF publicly announced the resumption of enforcement of the regulation, effective 2nd January, 2026.

I have read the press statement issued by the President of the NBA, as well as the attendant public reactions. With the utmost respect, I am constrained to state as follows:

The order issued by the Federal High Court, Warri Judicial Division, cannot by any stretch of legal interpretation be construed as an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. There is nothing on the face of that order which either expressly or impliedly restrains the Nigeria Police Force from enforcing the tinted glass permit regulation. No injunctive relief was granted, nor was any preservative order made against the NPF.

As at today, there is no subsisting judicial pronouncement whatsoever restraining or barring the Police from enforcing the regulation. Even, the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed by the NBA, which sought to restrain the NPF pending the determination of the substantive suit, was struck out by the Court. The legal implication is that, there is no order in force inhibiting enforcement.

It is settled law that a party cannot be restrained from exercising its statutory powers in the absence of a clear and specific court order. Courts do not grant injunctions by implication, and parties are not required to read into court orders what is not expressly stated therein.

With respect, i wonder what the NBA expects the NPF to do in the absence of a clear restraining order. It is trite that a party is entitled to continue to exercise its lawful authority until a competent court expressly orders otherwise.

The mere fact that a matter is sub judice does not, without more, impose an obligation on parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum. The doctrine of lis pendens does not operate automatically to freeze statutory or administrative actions, particularly where no injunctive relief has been granted. To hold otherwise would be to elevate public sentiment above settled principles of law.

In the circumstances, the resumption of enforcement by the NPF, in the absence of any subsisting court order to the contrary, is legally sustainable.

16/12/2025

The Federal Government has directed an immediate suspension of all enforcement actions relating to the proposed ban on sachet alcohol and 200ml PET bottle products, pending the conclusion of consultations and the issuance of a final policy directive.

The directive was issued by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF), following concerns raised by the House of Representatives Committee on Food and Drugs Administration and Control.

In a statement released on Monday by Terrence Kuanum, Special Adviser on Public Affairs to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), the OSGF confirmed receipt of an official correspondence from the House Committee dated November 13, 2025. The letter, referenced NASS/10/HR/CT.53/77 and signed by the committee’s Deputy Chairman, Hon. Uchenna Harris Okonkwo, drew attention to existing National Assembly resolutions on the matter and urged caution in the proposed enforcement.

According to the OSGF, the issues raised in the correspondence are currently under review in line with its statutory role as Chairman of the Cabinet Secretariat and the coordinating authority for government policy implementation.

“Accordingly, all actions, decisions, or enforcement measures relating to the proposed sachet alcohol ban are to be suspended pending the conclusion of consultations and the issuance of a final directive,” the statement said

The office assured Nigerians that it is conducting a comprehensive review of all relevant considerations, including legislative resolutions, public health concerns, economic implications, and the broader national interest, to arrive at a balanced and lawful outcome.

It added that the public would be formally informed once a final position on the proposed ban has been reached.

16/12/2025

ICC rejects Israel appeal, arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant remain in force

More than a year after it was filed, the International Criminal Court rejected Israel’s appeal on the principle of complementarity by a narrow 3–2 vote, keeping arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant in effect

Itamar Eichner | published: 20:12

The International Criminal Court in The Hague on Monday rejected Israel’s appeal regarding the principle of complementarity, leaving in place the arrest warrants issued last November against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.

The decision was adopted by a narrow majority of three judges to two, but is final, as it was issued by the court’s Appeals Chamber.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry sharply criticized the ruling, calling it “another example of the ongoing politicization of the International Criminal Court” and saying it reflects “politics disguised as ‘international law.’”

In its appeal, Israel argued that the ICC prosecutor should have given the state an opportunity to investigate the alleged conduct itself, in line with the principle of complementarity enshrined in the Rome Statute. According to the minority opinion at the court, Israel should indeed have been given an opportunity to notify the prosecutor that it was conducting investigations into the acts attributed to it, and that the initial notification provided in 2018 was insufficiently precise.

However, Israel maintains that it did not commit war crimes, rendering the issue largely theoretical from its perspective.
In a statement, the Foreign Ministry said Israel “rejects the Appeals Chamber’s decision, adopted by a razor-thin majority, to deny Israel its right to prior notification as required under the principle of complementarity, particularly with respect to a democratic state with an independent and robust judicial system.”

The ministry added that the ruling demonstrates “the court’s blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states, as well as its own obligations under the Rome Statute.”

Last November, Israel submitted two documents to the ICC Appeals Chamber in response to the arrest warrants issued against Netanyahu and Gallant.

In the first document, spanning 14 pages, Israel challenged the jurisdiction of the Pre-Trial Chamber that authorized the warrants. In the second, a 13-page filing, Israel rejected the court’s reasoning for refusing to allow the investigation to be returned to Israeli authorities.

Israel argued that it did not receive adequate notification under Article 18(1) of the Rome Statute regarding the court’s investigations into events following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. It said a notification issued in 2021, which related to earlier events, was not applicable to the unprecedented circumstances that followed the massacre in southern Israel.

Among Israel’s central arguments was that the court’s decision ignored Israel’s right to demonstrate that its domestic investigative mechanisms are addressing the alleged crimes, as required under the principle of complementarity. Israel also argued that the ruling undermines its sovereignty and the ICC’s obligations toward states that are not parties to the Rome Statute, including Israel.

16/12/2025

Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, has called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Chairman to recuse himself from an ongoing investigation and threatened prosecution, describing the probe as a politically motivated “witch-hunt.”

In a press release issued on Monday, Malami claimed that the investigation and his detention are driven by personal animosity linked to his recent defection to the African Democratic Congress (ADC). He alleged that the EFCC Chairman harbors a historical grudge stemming from the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry, which investigated corruption allegations within the EFCC during Malami’s tenure as Attorney-General.

“The present investigation—marked by illegal detentions, media harassment, and procedural abuses—bears all the hallmarks of retaliatory persecution motivated by personal vengeance,” Malami said. He emphasized that the EFCC, under its current leadership, cannot conduct a fair or objective investigation into his activities.

Malami formally demanded that the EFCC Chairman step aside and that the matter be transferred to another government agency to ensure impartiality, credibility, and public confidence. He also called on the current Attorney-General of the Federation to intervene, warning that continued involvement by the EFCC Chairman risks further institutional damage and abuse of prosecutorial powers.

Insisting on judicial oversight, Malami urged immediate arraignment before a competent court, in compliance with Sections 35(3), (4), and (5) of the Nigerian Constitution, stating that only a court—not a politically compromised agency—can lawfully adjudicate the matter.

He further accused the EFCC of planning to rely on questionable witnesses, including individuals convicted abroad, to bolster its case against him, calling the approach “desperate, scandalous, and corrosive to the integrity of Nigeria’s criminal justice system.”

The press release confirmed that Malami’s office has formally requested certified copies of the petitions and investigation reports forming the basis of the EFCC’s actions, citing petitions by Human and Environmental Agenda and Grassroot Advocacy for Peace and Good Governance.

Malami concluded by stressing that his objective is to clear his name transparently through lawful judicial processes, warning against the politicization of anti-corruption agencies. “The law must remain supreme—above politics, above power, and above persons,” he said.

The statement was signed by Mohammed Bello Doka, Special Assistant on Media to Abubakar Malami, SAN

Mothers & Sons Law Chamber.

14/02/2026

24/12/2025

18/12/2025

18/12/2025

18/12/2025

17/12/2025

17/12/2025

16/12/2025

16/12/2025

16/12/2025

16/12/2025

16/12/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category