Suspected corruption: Ahamba, Kalu, Adegoke, Ajulo stand against ‘unbridled assault on the judiciary.’

A group of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, have opposed widespread accusations of fraud and corruption targeting judges and the judiciary due to controversial decisions made by a few judges in political cases. They caution those involved, emphasizing the potential consequences for the nation and its citizens.

Prominent among the Senior Advocates expressing their discontent are Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, a former Abia State Attorney-General; Professor Awa Kalu, SAN; rights activist Mr. Kunle Adegoke, SAN; and constitutional lawyer Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, SAN. These legal professionals argue against tarnishing the judiciary’s reputation, highlighting the risk of fostering anarchy.

Disagreeing with their peers, the senior lawyers stress the importance of recognizing that branding the entire judiciary as failed due to the actions of a few judges is unjust. They argue that it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary and can lead to public mistrust. They acknowledge that while some judges have made controversial decisions, condemning the entire judiciary is unfair to the majority of judges diligently performing their duties.

The lawyers contend that politicians tend to praise the judiciary when verdicts favor them but criticize and even attack the institution when decisions go against them. They express concern that some lawyers, knowledgeable about legal procedures, join in denigrating the judiciary, potentially damaging its credibility.

In individual interviews, the lawyers provide insights into handling situations where incorrect judgments are rendered. They advocate for a more nuanced approach, acknowledging that not all judgments generating controversy are necessarily incorrect or unjust. They caution against a blanket condemnation of the judiciary, emphasizing the need for a balanced perspective.

Mr. Kunle Adegoke, SAN, acknowledges the presence of a few corrupt elements in the judiciary but urges a fair evaluation that considers the majority of upright judges. Professor Awa Kalu, SAN, warns against lawyers attempting to tarnish the judiciary, emphasizing the vastness and importance of this branch of government.

Dr. Kayode Ajulo, SAN, acknowledges universal criticism of the judiciary but notes its prevalence during elections. He highlights the role of lawyers in shaping public perception and suggests that controversial cases may not accurately reflect the facts in the public domain.

Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, criticizes discussions in the media as lacking in facts and legal understanding. He advocates for a more informed analysis of judgments by academics rather than destroying the judiciary’s image. Adegoke, SAN, concurs, suggesting that critique and analysis in academic journals contribute positively to legal jurisprudence without damaging the reputation of judges and the judiciary.