By VITUS OZOKE, PhD

The current dispute between His Excellency Peter Obi and Kenneth Okonkwo has generated significant political interest. Yet viewing this matter solely through a partisan political lens misses the larger, more disturbing issue at stake. This controversy is fundamentally about professional ethics, trust, truth, personal integrity, and the standards Nigerians should expect from members of the legal profession.

According to reports, Peter Obi has demanded a retraction, a public apology, and ?5 billion in damages over allegations made by Kenneth Okonkwo during a national television appearance. Those allegations reportedly portrayed Obi as engaging in activities such as collecting money from political aspirants, compiling candidate lists in secret, and other conduct suggestive of corruption and criminality.

The allegations are serious, and so are their consequences. Therefore, the burden of proof should be equally serious and high. They cannot be casually tossed into the public arena merely because political alliances have collapsed and former friends have become rivals. In every civilized society, freedom of expression is protected. Political criticism is legitimate. Public officials and political leaders must expect scrutiny. But freedom of expression is not freedom to invent facts. Political disagreement is not a license for character assassination. Democracy cannot survive if public discourse degenerates into a contest over who can make the most sensational accusation without proof.

What makes this matter particularly troubling is that one of the individuals allegedly cited as the source of the allegations, Mr. Obunike Ohaegbu, an aspirant for the House of Representatives on the NDC platform for the Nnewi North, Nnewi South, and Ekwusigo federal constituency, has appeared on national TV and publicly denied ever providing such information to Kenneth Okonkwo. Ohaegbu has challenged Okonkwo to produce evidence of any communication in which he made those allegations against Peter Obi. At this point, the issue ought to be straightforward: Produce the evidence, or withdraw the allegations. That is how responsible public discourse functions. There is no middle ground.

What is particularly disturbing, however, is Kenneth Okonkwo’s reported response to the legal demand. Rather than reassuring the public that he has evidence to support his claims, he reportedly threatened to reveal confidential information he became privy to while serving as Peter Obi’s spokesman and close political associate. That statement should send chills down the spine of every lawyer and every client in Nigeria. There is a crucial fact that cannot be ignored. Kenneth Okonkwo was not merely a political supporter of Peter Obi; he was also one of his lawyers.

Following the 2023 presidential election, Kenneth Okonkwo publicly identified himself as a member of Obi’s legal team challenging the election results. In his own words, Okonkwo wrote: “We have a formidable team of legal luminaries representing Peter Obi. From left is [sic] the head of the team, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, Awa Kalu SAN, Benbella Anachebe SAN, Kenneth Okonkwo Esq, and a host of other experienced lawyers. May God grant us wisdom to recover the people’s mandate” (see Aliyu Abdulkareem’s report in The Nigerian Tribune, filed May 8, 2023). These are not the words of a casual political supporter. They are the words of a lawyer publicly identifying himself as part of a legal team representing a client. That distinction changes everything.

A lawyer occupies a special position in society because the legal profession rests on trust. Lawyers are entrusted with secrets, confidences, sensitive information, and privileged communications. They are expected to exercise restraint, discretion, and fidelity even when relationships sour. Clients share confidences with their lawyers not only because they believe those communications will be protected, but also because they trust that lawyers are bound by ethical obligations that transcend political disagreements, personal grievances, and shifting alliances.

A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality is not conditional on friendship. It is not a favor reserved for friends. It is a professional obligation. It does not disappear when relationships deteriorate. It does not expire when political alliances collapse. It certainly does not become a weapon to brandish whenever a former client seeks legal redress. Indeed, one defining characteristic of the legal profession is that lawyers remain bound by ethical obligations long after representation has ended. That is why the reported threat to disclose confidential information is so deeply alarming.

The notion that a lawyer would respond to criticism or threats of litigation by threatening to disclose confidential information obtained in a position of trust strikes at the very foundation of professional ethics. If accurately reported, such conduct raises serious questions about fitness, judgment, and respect for the principles that govern the legal profession. Every lawyer knows that professional obligations do not disappear when political friendships collapse. Every lawyer knows that confidences are not bargaining chips. Every lawyer knows that privileged information is not a weapon to be deployed whenever personal interests are threatened.

If lawyers begin publicly threatening to expose information obtained in positions of trust whenever disputes arise, the consequences would be catastrophic. Who would trust a lawyer with sensitive information? Who would confide in counsel during litigation? Who would feel secure discussing legal strategy? Who would believe that confidentiality still means anything? If such conduct becomes normalized, every client, associate, political principal, business partner, and friend should be worried. Trust becomes impossible when confidences can be turned into political ammunition at the first sign of disagreement.

The issue here extends far beyond Peter Obi. Today it may be Peter Obi. Tomorrow it may be a businessman. The next day it may be an ordinary citizen. The principle must remain the same. A lawyer entrusted with confidential information has no moral or professional right to turn that trust into political ammunition. This is why the Nigerian Bar Association and its disciplinary bodies should pay close attention to this matter and not treat it as just another political quarrel.

The issue is no longer whether Kenneth Okonkwo supports or opposes Peter Obi – political loyalties are irrelevant. Lawyers are free to belong to any political party and to support any candidate. The issue is whether a lawyer can publicly make grave allegations without evidence and, when challenged to substantiate them, threaten to disclose confidential information obtained through a relationship of trust. The issue is whether Kenneth Okonkwo, as an enrolled lawyer, is in serious violation of professional ethics.

The NBA, as the guardian of professional standards in the legal profession, has a responsibility that extends beyond defending lawyers. It must also protect the integrity and public reputation of the profession. The legal profession derives its authority from public confidence. When allegations arise that a lawyer has acted in a manner inconsistent with professional ethics, the appropriate institutions should examine the facts and determine whether disciplinary review is warranted. Whenever lawyers publicly conduct themselves in ways that diminish that confidence, the profession suffers.

The tragedy of contemporary Nigerian politics is that too many individuals seem willing to sacrifice principle on the altar of relevance. Alliances shift. Parties shift. Talking points shift. What should never shift are the core values of honesty, integrity, and professional responsibility. A person’s character is often revealed not when relationships flourish but when they break down. Integrity is measured by how one treats former allies, not current ones. The public deserves evidence, not allegations. The legal profession deserves dignity, not spectacle. And Nigeria deserves better than a political culture in which accusations replace proof and personal confidences become tools of intimidation.

To be clear, no lawyer should be condemned without due process. But lawyers should not be insulated from scrutiny simply because they are politically connected or publicly prominent. The Rules of Professional Conduct apply equally to the newest lawyer in a small-town chamber and to public figures and celebrity lawyers. Indeed, public figures should be held to an even higher standard because their conduct shapes public perceptions of the profession.

At its heart, this controversy poses a simple moral question: Can a lawyer publicly accuse a former client of grave misconduct without evidence and then, in response to a legal challenge, threaten to reveal confidential information obtained in a position of trust? Most Nigerians instinctively know the answer. The answer is no.

A lawyer’s first duty is to the truth. A lawyer’s first obligation is to integrity. A lawyer’s stock-in-trade is trust. Once trust is sacrificed to political expediency, little remains. Political parties may change. Political alliances may shift. Political fortunes may rise and fall. But the ethical foundations of the legal profession must remain constant.

That is why this matter deserves serious attention – not merely from politicians and commentators, but from every lawyer who values the profession’s honor. For when trust becomes expendable, professionalism becomes meaningless. And when professionalism becomes meaningless, the entire justice system is diminished.

If Kenneth Okonkwo has evidence, he should present it. If not, he should retract the allegations, apologize to Gov. Obi, and face disciplinary consequences from the Nigerian Bar Association. Anything less would be not courage but recklessness; not principle but opportunism; not advocacy but a dangerous assault on the standards that hold both democracy and the legal profession together.

NBA, over to you!

•Dr. Vitus Ozoke is a lawyer, human rights activist, and public affairs analyst based in the United States. He writes on politics, governance, and the moral costs of leadership failure in Africa.

Update news