A prominent Awka‑based lawyer, Barrister Clems Ezika, SAN, is under formal scrutiny following a petition filed by Inland Medical Company (Nig.) Ltd. accusing him of deliberately misrepresenting a Court of Appeal judgment in official correspondence with the Anambra State Ministry of Lands.
Details of the Petition
- Filed: March 3, 2026
- Accusations: Professional misconduct and possible criminality, specifically the alleged falsification of judicial pronouncements.
- Requested actions:
-
- Investigation by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)
- Consideration of punitive measures by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC)
The Controversial Letter
- Date: December 1, 2025
- Authored by: Barrister Ezika, acting for clients including Chief Dilim Okafor, Tracey Hotels Ltd., Stello General Products Ltd., and Lento Nigeria Ltd.
- Content: Ezika reportedly informed the Commissioner for Lands that the Court of Appeal, in petition CA/AW/413/2021, had ruled Inland Medical’s claims over several disputed plots were statute‑barred and that the company “has no more claims and rights” over the properties.
- Dispute: Inland Medical insists this representation of the judgment is false and misleading.
Broader Implications
- Professional accountability: The case raises questions about ethical standards in legal practice and the consequences of misrepresenting judicial decisions.
- Judicial integrity: Observers note that if proven, the allegations could undermine confidence in the legal system and property dispute resolutions in Anambra State.
- Next steps: The NBA and LPDC are expected to review the petition and determine whether disciplinary or criminal proceedings should follow.
This petition marks a significant test of Nigeria’s legal disciplinary framework, with potential consequences for both the lawyer involved and broader perceptions of judicial credibility.
Inland Medical Debunks Claims
Inland Medical rejected that account and attached a certified copy of the appeal judgment to its petition, arguing the lawyer’s summary materially misstates the court’s decision.
In a sworn affidavit supporting the petition, the company’s agent stated plainly:
“The contents of the letter dated 1st day of December, 2025, are totally untrue and a professional act of misconduct.”
The petition also notes that the Ministry of Lands reproduced Ezika’s assertions in an official communication to Inland Medical dated 18 February 2026 (Ref: LAW/611/T), amplifying the alleged misrepresentation to government authorities.
The complaint invokes Rule 32(3)(f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.
The rule requires candour and fair dealing by lawyers and expressly forbids knowingly misquoting judicial decisions or legal authorities.
The petitioners argue that Ezika’s conduct — if proven deliberate — would amount to a grave breach of professional ethics and could also constitute an offence under criminal statutes for misleading public officials.
What the Petition Alleges
The petition sets out three principal allegations:
- That Ezika knowingly misquoted the Court of Appeal judgment in Appeal No. CA/AW/413/2021 and presented a false interpretation to the Ministry of Lands.
- That the misquotation was reproduced in official ministry correspondence, thereby influencing public decision‑making about land subdivisions and allocations.
- That the misrepresentation was not an innocent error but a deliberate act intended to prejudice Inland Medical’s legal rights.
To buttress its case, Inland Medical attached a certified true copy of the Court of Appeal judgment as Annexure ‘BB’, and the petition stresses the importance of comparing the judgment text with Ezika’s summary.
As the petition notes, “Hereby attached is the Certified True Copy of the Judgment/Order in Appeal No. CA/AW/413/2021 (unreported) marked ANNEXURE ‘BB’.”
Possible Sanctions and Legal Consequences
If the NBA’s disciplinary machinery finds merit in the complaint, Ezika could face a range of sanctions.
The LPDC has the power to impose reprimands, fines, suspension from practice, or, in the most serious cases, removal from the roll of legal practitioners.
The petition also invites criminal investigation, arguing that knowingly false statements used to mislead public officials may attract prosecution under relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and other statutes.
Legal commentators say the outcome will hinge on whether investigators can establish intent.
A single misstatement, they note, might be treated as negligence; a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation, especially one that influences government action, would be far more serious.
The presence of certified court records in the petition strengthens Inland Medical’s position and will be central to any disciplinary hearing.
Ministry of Lands and Public Harm
The petitioners emphasize that the alleged misquotation did not remain private: the Ministry of Lands’ letter of 18 February 2026 reproduced Ezika’s assertions.
It thereby risked altering the course of administrative decisions affecting land subdivision and allocation.
Inland Medical argues this compounded the harm and underscores the need for a prompt and transparent inquiry.
Journalistic Outreach and Silence
In keeping with standard journalistic practice, our correspondent reached out to Chief Clems Ezika to offer him an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
In the outreach, our correspondent requested Ezika’s comments to balance the report.
Ezika denied any wrongdoing and promised to respond formally as soon as he receives a copy of the petition.
What Comes Next
The NBA is expected to acknowledge receipt of the petition and decide whether to open a formal investigation.
If the LPDC proceeds, the matter will move to a disciplinary hearing where both sides can present evidence, call witnesses, and cross‑examine.
Inland Medical has urged swift action, arguing that professional integrity and the sanctity of judicial decisions are at stake.
Observers say the case could set an important precedent for how Nigeria’s legal profession handles alleged misrepresentations of court rulings, particularly when such statements influence government action.
The matter also raises broader questions about the safeguards that should exist to prevent the misuse of legal opinions in administrative processes.
A Wider Professional Concern
Beyond the immediate dispute, the petition has prompted reflection within legal circles about the responsibilities of senior counsel when communicating with public authorities.
Lawyers are custodians of the rule of law, legal ethicists say, and any erosion of candour in official communications risks undermining public trust in both the profession and the justice system.
For now, the spotlight remains on Chief Clems Ezika SAN.
The NBA’s response, the LPDC’s decision on whether to investigate, and any subsequent findings will determine whether the allegations amount to professional misconduct warranting punitive measures.
LPDC will also determine whether they will be dismissed as a contested interpretation of a complex appeal judgment.
DDM will continue to follow the story and report developments as the NBA, the LPDC, the Ministry of Lands, and Chief Ezika provide official statements or responses.
