*Says “Until The Court Of Appeal Pronounces On The Issues Before It, The Allegations Against
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The chambers of Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed, SAN, has issued a public rejoinder to allegations of professional misconduct and conflict of interest made against him, saying the allegations are before the Court of Appeal, have not been adjudicated, and must not be presented to the public as established facts.
The rejoinder, dated 30 September 2026 and signed by Ndarani, SAN & Co. of Solace Law Chambers, Abuja, responds to media publications and public statements it attributes to Mauritz Walton Limited, its associates and, in particular, Mr. Maurice Ibe.
“Ordinarily, we are averse to public exchanges concerning matters that are sub judice,” it states. “Litigation ought to be conducted in the courtroom and not through newspapers, social media platforms or competing press statements.”
“However, in view of the nature and seriousness of the allegations now being circulated against a distinguished Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and the apparent attempt to present allegations contained in pending proceedings as though they were established facts, we consider it necessary to put the record straight.”
“The attempt to transform a pending interlocutory dispute concerning the representation of a party in an appeal into a public trial of Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN, is unfortunate, misleading and unwarranted.”
“The Allegations Have Not Been Adjudicated Upon”
The rejoinder states that the substantive dispute arising from the judgment obtained against the Government of Benue State is before the Court of Appeal, and that the application seeking the senior advocate’s disqualification is equally before that court.
“To the best of our knowledge, no court has made any finding that Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN, has committed professional misconduct in relation to this matter,” it states.
“It is therefore misleading to present allegations made by an interested litigant in a pending proceeding as though they constitute established findings of a court. The proper forum for determining whether there exists a disqualifying conflict of interest is the court seized of the matter, upon the evidence and the applicable law.”
The Procedural History
The rejoinder argues that the public narrative should not begin with the senior advocate’s appearance for the state government while ignoring how the underlying judgment and enforcement proceedings arose.
The position of the Government of Benue State, it states, is that the proceedings culminating in the judgment “did not originate in Benue State in the manner suggested by the present media narrative,” the relevant dispute having had its roots in Benue State while proceedings were subsequently pursued before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
“Of particular concern to the Government is the manner and speed with which the proceedings are alleged to have progressed, including the obtaining of the judgment or order within a remarkably short period.”
“The Government maintains that it was not duly served with the relevant originating processes before the proceedings proceeded to the stage now complained of,” it states. “If established by the record, that raises fundamental questions concerning service, fair hearing and the competence of the proceedings.”
“Service of originating processes is not a mere technicality. Nigerian appellate authorities have repeatedly treated proper service as fundamental to the opportunity of a party to know the case against it and to be heard.”
How The Government Says It Learnt Of The Case
The rejoinder states that the government’s position is that it became aware of the judgment and the proceedings “principally through steps connected with the garnishee proceedings, rather than through proper and timely service of the substantive originating processes upon it,” and that the circumstance is central to the appeal.
It poses a series of questions it says are for the court: whether the government was duly served; when and how service was effected; whether it was afforded a meaningful opportunity to defend the claim; what the procedural history was before judgment was entered; how the matter moved from its original circumstances to proceedings in Abuja; what steps were taken immediately after judgment to enforce the award; and whether the government was given the opportunity to contest the claim before enforcement steps were initiated.
“These are judicial questions, not questions to be determined by newspaper statements.”
“Not The End Of The Matter”
On the sum involved, the rejoinder states that the judgment reportedly put at approximately 7.4 billion naira is presently the subject of an appeal.
“It is therefore legally and factually incorrect to speak of the judgment as though it represents the final determination of all issues between the parties.”
The government has challenged, among other matters, the circumstances surrounding the proceedings, the contractual relationship relied upon, the identity and entitlement of the parties, the procedure adopted by the trial court and the steps taken towards enforcement.
“The fact that a judgment has been delivered at first instance does not extinguish the right of an aggrieved party to pursue its statutory right of appeal.”
The Contract
The rejoinder makes what is perhaps its central factual assertion.
“The Government has provided the contract document relied upon in the dispute. On its face, and subject to the determination of the court, the contract identifies Bizplus Consulting Services Limited and the Government of Benue State as the contracting parties. Mauritz Walton Limited was not a party to that contract.”
“Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN, has never represented Bizplus Consulting Services Limited anywhere in Nigeria.”
That fact, it states, is significant “because the present dispute is being portrayed as though his previous professional engagement for Mauritz Walton automatically disqualifies him from representing Benue State in every matter in which Mauritz Walton may have an interest.”
“That is not a proposition that can simply be declared by press release. It requires examination of the actual retainership, its scope, the information obtained, the subject matter of the previous engagement and whether any confidential information relevant to the present dispute was acquired.”
“Not A Perpetual Retainer”
The rejoinder does not dispute the earlier engagement.
“It is not disputed that Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN, acted for Mauritz Walton in certain recovery proceedings in 2022,” it states. “But a lawyer’s engagement for a defined professional assignment does not, without more, become a perpetual retainer covering every conceivable dispute involving that former client for all time.”
It lists the questions it says are relevant: the precise scope of the 2022 retainer; its subject matter; the parties and transactions involved; what confidential information was actually obtained; whether any such information is relevant to the present appeal; whether the previous engagement was completed or otherwise terminated; whether it concerned the same transaction or subject matter now before the Court of Appeal; and whether there is evidence that the senior advocate’s professional judgment in the present matter is compromised.
It states that Rule 17 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 addresses conflict-of-interest considerations, including disclosure of relevant relationships and circumstances that may affect professional judgment, but that “the Rule does not transform every former client relationship into an indefinite prohibition against accepting future briefs.”
“The real question is not whether Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN, once represented Mauritz Walton,” it states. “The real question is whether the circumstances of that previous representation, considered alongside the present engagement, establish a legally cognisable conflict. That requires evidence.”
“A Substitute For The Real Issues”
The rejoinder argues that the focus on the senior advocate’s representation risks diverting attention from the substantive questions before the appellate court, which it lists as the circumstances in which the original proceedings were commenced; the question of proper service; the competence and jurisdiction of the trial court; the contractual relationship between the parties; the entitlement of the respective parties to the reliefs granted; the circumstances surrounding the judgment; the enforcement and garnishee proceedings; the subsequent challenge by the state government; and the legal effect of the orders made by the appellate court.
“Those are serious legal issues which should not be obscured by a media campaign about counsel’s professional representation.”
It adds that upon becoming aware of the matter the government “did what any litigant faced with a judgment of such magnitude would be expected to do,” and that the appeal “is not an attempt to frustrate justice” but the exercise of a constitutional and statutory right.
The rejoinder raises a further matter concerning the conduct of the appellate proceedings.
“We are instructed that, at an earlier sitting, the matter was adjourned in open court to a date in October,” it states. “We are further instructed that, notwithstanding that open-court adjournment, two different dates were subsequently obtained without corresponding communication to counsel representing the Government of Benue State.”
“We understand that, at the subsequent sitting, the Court of Appeal itself expressed concern regarding this development and directed the parties to adhere to the dates earlier granted in open court for October.”
“We deliberately leave the ultimate characterisation of these events to the court and the record. But the incident demonstrates precisely why litigation should be conducted transparently through the established judicial process rather than through unilateral communications or public narratives.”
The Status Quo Order
The chambers states that it is “particularly concerned by reports concerning attempts to proceed with enforcement notwithstanding orders of the Court of Appeal directing parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the relevant proceedings.”
“The principle is straightforward: an order of a competent court must be obeyed unless and until it is discharged, varied or otherwise set aside by a competent court. If any party believes that a particular order does not prohibit a proposed enforcement step, the appropriate remedy is to approach the court for clarification or appropriate consequential orders.”
“The remedy cannot be self-help. Nor should an interested party seek through media pressure what it has not obtained through judicial determination.”
On Alleged Inducements
The rejoinder notes assertions “concerning alleged approaches, pressure or financial inducements said to have been made to Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN.”
“Because allegations of this nature are serious and potentially capable of generating collateral disputes, we will not engage in a parallel public investigation or make findings of fact through this rejoinder. If any party has credible evidence of such conduct, the appropriate forum is the court or other competent authority.”
“What must not happen, however, is for unproven allegations concerning alleged inducements, pressure or motive to be used to create a public narrative that substitutes for evidence.”
The rejoinder states that the mere fact that a lawyer represents a party whose position is adverse to the interests of a person previously represented does not, standing alone, establish professional misconduct.
“The appropriate question is therefore not: is Mauritz Walton dissatisfied with Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed’s appearance for Benue State? The appropriate question is: do the facts and applicable professional rules establish a disqualifying conflict of interest? That question has been placed before the Court of Appeal. Let the court determine it.”
It urges the public to distinguish carefully between allegation and evidence, argument and finding, judgment and final determination on appeal, and media assertion and judicial pronouncement.
“There is a fundamental difference between exercising a legitimate legal right to challenge counsel’s appearance and publicly declaring that counsel has committed professional misconduct before the allegation has been adjudicated. The first is litigation. The second risks becoming trial by publicity.”
The chambers states that Mauritz Walton Limited is entitled to present its case, that the Government of Benue State is entitled to defend the judgment and enforcement proceedings, that the senior advocate is entitled to represent his client within the bounds of the law, and that the Court of Appeal is entitled to determine the matter on the record, the evidence and the applicable law.
“Nothing more is required,” it states. “That is how disputes in a constitutional democracy are resolved. Not through headlines. Not through social-media campaigns. Not through public pressure. But through evidence, argument and judgment.”
“Where a party believes that another party has breached a court order, the remedy is to bring that alleged breach before the appropriate court. Where a party believes that counsel is conflicted, the remedy is to establish that contention before the appropriate forum. Where a party believes that a judgment is wrong, the remedy is an appeal. The law provides remedies for each of these grievances. The media is not a substitute for any of them.”
“If Mauritz Walton Limited genuinely believes that Mr. Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN, is professionally disqualified from appearing for the Government of Benue State, it has taken the appropriate step by placing that complaint before the Court of Appeal. It should now allow the court to determine the issue.”
“Until the Court of Appeal pronounces on the issues before it, the allegations against Mr. Mohammed Ndarani-Mohammed, SAN, remain allegations and must not be presented to the public as established professional misconduct.”
“Let the Court decide.”
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
