Senator Babafemi Ojodu has been criticized by Dr. Kayode Ajulo, a senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), for claims that Nigerian justice is for sale.
In a statement headlined “Is Justice Truly for Sale in Nigeria?” released on Thursday. In A Necessary Balance to Senator Ojudu’s “How They Buy the Judges & Break the Country,” Ajulo said that Ojudu’s accusation was unjust to the country’s legal system.
If Ojodu’s story is not refuted, it might be used as an unfair benchmark and statistic to assess the integrity of the Nigerian judiciary and the many honorable men and women who work there.
We also need to recognize Ojudu’s bravery in sharing his worries. For decades, his voice has influenced public discourse. I provide this essential balance in the same spirit of open participation.
“Any rational individual would find the senator’s story disconcerting. I respect his freedom to share his narrative. But an institution should never be defined by a single bad experience.
“Narratives must be balanced or they run the risk of distorting reality and misleading posterity, especially those presented by respected voices.”
Ajulo claims that Ojudu did not emphasize the positive experiences he had in the same legal system, so it is vital to help him by providing context, perspective, and my own experiences from 25 years of legal practice.
“Corruption is a reality that affects all sectors of society and is not unique to any one branch of government or occupation.
“I disagree with the risky implications that all judges or legal procedures are tainted. We are aware of the prevalence of these stereotypes. It is unfair to denounce an organization as a whole due to the shortcomings of a select few.
He claimed that “Ojodu forgot that one of his greatest political victories was delivered by the judiciary, which he now paints with such broad strokes, rather than by political power.”
Ajulo pointed out that the judiciary settled the dispute when Sen. Bode Ola of Ekiti contested Ojodu’s senatorial mandate (Ekiti Central) following the Action Congress primaries.
“A significant contributor to my practice, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, a renowned human rights attorney, directly contacted me to take on the case.
“I first voiced my concerns because I was a devoted leader of the Labour Party at the time, acting as its legal adviser before taking on the role of National Secretary. I ran for the FCT Senate seat in Abuja under the platform of the PDP, which was in power in my home state of Ondo State.
Falana, however, maintained that integrity, trust, and character were more important than politics. We therefore started the arduous but necessary route from the Federal High Court via the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the political ramifications.
“There was never any indication of corruption or bribery during that process. We prepared carefully, using only logic, facts, and the law.
“We prevailed at every level, from the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court, without coercion, without purchasing influence, and without sacrificing our principles.”
Ajulo said, “This is the side of the judiciary that Ojudu benefited from, the side that thousands of Nigerians experienced every day.”
He emphasized that in the instance of Oodua People’s Congress leaders, the same allegedly corrupt judiciary was found not guilty of treason.
“The late Dr. Frederick Fasehun, Iba Gani Adams (now the Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubaland), and four others were arrested in the run-up to the 2007 elections on charges of disturbing the public.”
The current president, Bola Tinubu, who was the governor of Lagos State at the time, later released them.
President Olusegun Obasanjo’s Federal Government then arrested them again, sent them to Abuja, held them for a long time, and finally accused them of treason.
“I joined the defense team headed by renowned legal titans like G.O.K. Ajayi and W.K. Shittu, who are now both SANs alongside Oluwole Kehinde. Festus Keyamo, who is currently the Minister of Aviation and a SAN, once joined the group.
Despite the assurance that they won’t be released till after the 2007 general election, Hon. Justice Anwuli Chikere of the Federal High Court rendered a brave decision that freed them. That was the judiciary resisting pressure from the executive branch.
He claimed that the Nigerian judiciary had rendered justice in numerous other well-known cases, regardless of the parties involved.
Several military personnel involved in the arms procurement controversy were detained and had their property seized during President Muhammadu Buhari’s civilian administration, which is renowned for its tough anti-corruption stance.
The main character was Hima Abubakar, a Nigerian arms trader whose assets and money were seized by the Federal Government per a court ruling.
“After being informed, I saw obvious legal problems that cast doubt on the forfeiture. Many cautioned me that the President had a personal stake in the issue, but we successfully contested it on the basis of the law and merit.
“No money was paid to anyone in order to reverse the forfeiture. That win was the result of the judiciary carrying out its mandate and upholding the law, not of persuasion.
He claims that for 25 years, honest lawyers would not be able to live, much less succeed, if the judiciary were as corrupt as alleged.
“Just three years ago, the Supreme Court heard a historic case in which I represented the National Assembly, Speaker of the House of Representatives Rt Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, and Senate President Ahmed Lawan.
“President Muhammadu Buhari and then-all-powerful Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, CON, requested that Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act be repealed.
The Supreme Court would never rule against the administration, according to many predictions. However, a panel of seven Justices, presided over by Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, rendered a daring and morally sound ruling that was firmly grounded in the law. That isn’t how a compromised bench acts,” he continued.
We must keep in mind that the late Sen. Buruji Kashamu is no longer living to comment on his purported boasting about pre-written decisions.
“In my whole career, I have never come across a judge deserving of his position who would let a lawyer draft a ruling on his behalf.
“That boast may have been empty, bluster intended to intimidate or impress, but it should never be used to condemn an entire institution.”
He pointed out that the vast majority of Nigerian judges are honest, diligent, morally pure, and fervently committed to justice, and that the National Judicial Council has sanctioned and still sanctions many.
These are men and women who work long hours, handle overwhelming caseloads, put up with scarce resources, and nonetheless render decisions that support democracy. They are deserving of respect, justice, and support.
“Institutions must be strengthened rather than destroyed by broad generalizations if we truly desire a better Nigeria. Criticism that is constructive is essential. Unfair condemnation is not.
“As we discuss the difficulties facing the judiciary, we must also recognize its excellence. Integrity must be emphasized where it flourishes while we fight wrongdoing where it occurs. We must never jeopardize the final hope of the average person, even while we call for improvements.
Without a trustworthy judiciary, a country cannot endure. However, truth—whole truth, balanced truth, and responsible truth—must be the foundation of that trust, he continued.
