Immigration Disowns Passport Linked To Ozekhome, Useni Property Dispute
The ongoing legal dispute involving Mike Ozekhome and Ponfa Useni has taken a significant turn following testimony from the Nigeria Immigration Service before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja. The case centres on a contested property in London allegedly linked to the late Jeremiah Useni, and includes serious allegations of forgery, impersonation, and the use of falsified documents to establish ownership.
At the resumed hearing, an official of the Nigeria Immigration Service, Aridegbe Akim, appeared as the first prosecution witness and presented key evidence that could influence the outcome of the trial. Akim told the court that a Nigerian passport submitted as part of the ownership claim could not be found in the agency’s database. The passport, bearing number A07535463 and said to belong to an individual identified as “Tali Shani,” reportedly has no traceable record within the immigration system.
According to Akim, the Nigerian passport issuance process is comprehensive and strictly regulated. It involves several stages, including payment, submission of identity documents, biometric data capture, and final issuance. Each step is electronically recorded, creating a verifiable trail for every passport issued. He explained that once a name or passport number is entered into the system, the complete details of the passport holder should appear if the document is legitimate.
However, in this case, neither the passport number nor the name produced any result. This absence of data, Akim emphasised, suggests that the passport was not issued through official channels. Although he acknowledged during cross-examination that the document looked similar to genuine Nigerian passports, he maintained that visual resemblance alone is not sufficient proof of authenticity. For a passport to be considered valid, it must be backed by corresponding records in the immigration database.
This testimony lends support to the prosecution’s case, which was filed by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation. The prosecution alleges that the defendants forged both an international passport and an irrevocable power of attorney. These documents, it claims, were used to impersonate a fictitious individual in order to assert ownership over a property located at 79 Randall Avenue in London.
The allegation of impersonation is particularly significant. If it is established that the identity “Tali Shani” does not correspond to a real person, it would suggest a deliberate attempt to mislead authorities and manipulate legal processes. Combined with the claim of forged documents, this could expose the defendants to serious criminal liability, including charges related to fraud and identity misrepresentation.
Beyond the issue of document authenticity, the case also raises broader questions about the origin of the disputed property. The prosecution has suggested that the London property may have been acquired through unlawful means linked to the late Useni. While this aspect of the case is yet to be fully explored in court, it introduces an additional layer of complexity, potentially expanding the scope of the trial to include financial and asset-related investigations.
Following the cross-examination of the witness, the prosecuting counsel requested time to present another witness to further strengthen the case. The defence did not oppose this request, indicating that both sides are preparing for a detailed examination of the evidence. Presiding over the matter, Chizoba Oji adjourned the proceedings and fixed May 18 for the continuation of the hearing.
As the trial progresses, the court will assess additional testimonies and documentary evidence to determine whether the allegations of forgery and impersonation can be substantiated. The outcome will not only decide the legitimacy of the property claim but could also have far-reaching legal consequences for the individuals involved, particularly given the seriousness of the charges and the international dimension of the dispute.
