Ifeanyi Ewuziem
Juritrust Centre for Socio-Legal Research and Documentation
- There is a persistent and dangerous myth circulating within the Nigerian legal community: the idea that once money enters a lawyer’s account and is labelled ‘Professional Fees,’ it is ‘baptized’ and shielded from any scrutiny. This falsehood has gained alarming traction on social media, suggesting that lawyers enjoy a unique immunity from money laundering laws. However, a dispassionate look at recent judicial trends and legislative updates reveals that a lawyer’s account is subject to the same legal scrutiny as that of any other citizen.
- The cornerstone of this misconception is often the case of FRN v Ozekhome (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1782) 448, where 75 million Naira paid to Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, by a former governor was challenged. In that instance, the court ruled that the learned Silk was not required to conduct an exhaustive inquiry into the source of his client’s funds before accepting his legitimate fees. The court found no evidence that the lawyer had guilty knowledge or a reason to believe the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity at the time of receipt.
- However, this ruling does not provide an absolute shield of immunity. Contrast this with FBI Legal v FRN (2022) LPELR-58590 (CA), where a lawyer was ordered to forfeit professional fees. In that case, a primary school teacher earning 76,000 Naira monthly suddenly received over 500 million Naira and transferred a huge portion to her lawyer. Crucially, unlike Chief Ozekhome, the lawyer in this case could not provide a single document to explain the nature of the professional services rendered to justify such a massive payment. This lack of evidence made it clear that the ‘fees’ were likely a cover for illicit funds.
- The principle of innocent receipt is not exclusive to the legal profession; it extends to all legitimate businesses. For example, in Olumide-Fusika v COP (2026) LPELR-83490 (CA), the court protected a phone seller whose account was frozen after a customer used fraudulent funds to buy devices. The court noted that an innocent businessperson who provides value for money cannot be held responsible for a customer’s prior crimes. This mirrors the logic in the Ozekhome case, proving that protection stems from the innocence of the transaction, not the professional status of the recipient.
- Just as a phone seller cannot claim their shop is a ‘sanctuary’ for dirty money simply because they sell phones, a lawyer cannot claim their account is a laundry for ‘professional fees.’ If the circumstances of a payment are suspicious enough that any reasonable person would question them, the ‘Professional Fees’ label will not prevent a forfeiture order. The law looks at the substance of the transaction and the knowledge of the recipient, not just the designation on the bank alert.
- We must also recognize that the legal landscape in Nigeria has shifted significantly since the earlier Ozekhome decision. We now have the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022 and the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC) 2023. These instruments have modernized the expectations placed on us, effectively narrowing the ‘no inquiry’ defense that many lawyers have historically relied upon.
- Specifically, Chapter 2 of the RPC now imposes mandatory obligations on lawyers regarding Know Your Client (KYC) and due diligence. Lawyers are now required to perform enhanced due diligence in certain high-risk circumstances. This means the old argument—that a lawyer has no business asking where a client’s money comes from – is increasingly becoming legally indefensible under the current regulatory regime.
- The failure to conduct these background checks can now be used as evidence of ‘willful blindness.’ If a lawyer ignores glaring red flags that suggest funds are the proceeds of crime, they risk being treated as a party to the illegality. In such cases, the courts are far less likely to view the lawyer as an ‘innocent recipient’ who simply took a fee for services rendered.
- It is therefore crucial for Nigerian lawyers to stop relying on outdated social media tropes and start implementing robust internal compliance. Identifying the source of wealth and the source of funds is no longer just ‘good practice’; it is becoming a shield against potential criminal liability. The era of receiving ‘blind’ payments and hoping for judicial protection is rapidly coming to an end.
In conclusion, there is nothing inherently ‘holy’ about a law firm’s bank account. Lawyers are citizens first and practitioners second, and they remain fully bound by the laws of the federation. By staying informed of the 2023 RPC and the Proceeds of Crime Act, we can protect our practices from being used as conduits for illicit wealth while ensuring our legitimate fees remain truly secure.