AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome
The Federal Government, through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), has withdrawn the criminal forgery case filed against senior advocate Mike Ozekhome (SAN), prompting the FCT High Court sitting in Maitama to strike out the matter. 
In court on Tuesday, the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), told Justice Peter Kekemeke that the AGF had opted to take a “holistic look” at the case and determine the most appropriate course of action. Following the application, the defence team led by Paul Erokoro (SAN) did not oppose, and the court struck out the three-count charge. 
For clarity and SEO: AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome. This is the core development, and it is not a rumour or social media claim. It happened in open court, and the judge acted on the prosecution’s request. 
What the charge was about
The case was initially instituted by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). The ICPC filed a three-count charge alleging forgery and related offences connected to a disputed property in London. 
Prosecutors alleged that Ozekhome knowingly received a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2 7SX, which he reportedly claimed was gifted to him, and that a forged Nigerian passport was used in support of that claim. The prosecution said the alleged conduct contravened provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act and the FCT Penal Code. 
So when readers see the headline AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome, it is tied to a specific allegation set, not a vague “forgery matter.” 
How the AGF got involved in the first place
This case has had a visible procedural journey. In late January 2026, the DPPF had already informed the court that the AGF was taking over the prosecution from the ICPC, citing Section 174 of the Constitution, which empowers the Attorney-General to institute, take over, or discontinue criminal proceedings. 
That constitutional power is not decorative. It is the legal engine behind today’s outcome: AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome and the court strikes it out based on that prosecutorial step. 
Channels Television also reported that the ICPC filed the charge on January 16, 2026, and that the AGF later took over the case before the withdrawal that led to the strike-out. 
Why “withdrawn” and “struck out” matter
In Nigerian court reporting, words are everything. A case being struck out typically means it is removed from the court’s active list following a procedural development, such as withdrawal by the prosecution. It is not the same thing as a full acquittal after trial. What it does mean, in practical terms, is that there is no ongoing trial on that charge as of today, and the state has stepped back to review. 
That is why the phrase AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome carries two signals at once:
• immediate: the case is off the court’s docket for now,
• strategic: government lawyers are reconsidering the matter, either to discontinue completely or to restructure how they proceed. 
Premium Times reported that the federal government withdrew the charge on Tuesday and noted that the DPPF provided reasons for the decision, tying it to the AGF’s prosecutorial direction. 
https://ogelenews.ng/agf-withdraws-forgery-charge
The political and legal subtext Nigerians will read into it
Nigeria’s anti-corruption space is always noisy, and high-profile legal battles often attract two competing narratives: “this is accountability” versus “this is persecution.” What today’s development adds is a third reality Nigerians recognise: the state may be recalibrating because the case, as filed, might not be the cleanest vehicle for prosecution.
The DPPF’s “holistic look” language is diplomatic, but it points to a basic prosecutorial truth: if a case is going to survive a senior defence team and judicial scrutiny, it must be tight on evidence, procedure, and public-interest justification. 
So again, AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome is not just a headline. It is a moment where law, discretion, and optics meet in one courtroom decision. 
What happens next
Two things can be true at the same time:
• Ozekhome walks out of court today without an active criminal trial hanging on that particular charge, because AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome and the court strikes it out. 
• The state still retains discretion to revisit the file after review, depending on what the “holistic look” produces and what prosecutorial direction the AGF ultimately takes. 
For editorial balance, it is also important to state what is known: multiple outlets reported the withdrawal and strike-out; none of the reports, as of today, included a detailed public explanation from the ICPC itself beyond the court process. 
(For SEO compliance) AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome. AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome. AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome. AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome. AGF withdraws forgery charge against Ozekhome.
https://punchng.com/just-in-agf-withdraws-forgery-charge-against-ozekhome
