By Ishaya Babagana
Now the smokescreen is clear and
like lawyers would say, the veil has been lifted. Mr. Akpata’s interview of
July 27, 2022, was a momentous whirlwind which shattered the fluff to expose
the hen’s cloaca. In an interview published by an online blog, titled “EXCLUSIVE:
“It is a day of shame for the Legal Profession……We are hypocrites…”, Akpata had
expressed his frustration at how those who had reached out to him who were
present at the meeting of the Body of Benchers held on July 26, 2022, including
those he had personally nominated to the BOB, failed to plug their own end of
the tunnel by raising the issue of his controversial letter to Chief Olanipekun
at the meeting. The palpable agony in Akpata’s voice is akin to that of Julius
Caesar at the moment of his assassination, when he sighted his friend Marcus
Junius Brutus as one of the assassins and he exclaimed: Et tu Brute
(even you, Brutus). Akpata who defensively explained the reason for not being
present at the first BOB’s meeting after his letter to Olanipekun mentioned
that nobody raised the issue at the BOB’s meeting which according to him, he
had attended remotely. He also mentioned that he refused to raise it because he
has done his own duty. For many who hitherto entertained doubts about the
mischief belied by the allegations and demands in his letter of July 22, 2022,
which spread all over the social media, the interview is a potpourri of
revelations. It is also a validation of the opinion of respondents that there
is more to the controversy than meets the eyes.
One thing to be deciphered from
the interview is that there is a wider spectrum of the grand scheme to be
executed in phases and by different actors. So, Martins-Aikpokpo was to include
in his petition against Ogunde, a prayer, asking for the LPDC’s direction to
prosecute the Olanipekuns, then same is to be blown to the media on the morning
of July 22, 2022. Once this is in the media with the screaming headlines all
imputing allegations of misconduct against Olanipekun, Akpata was to write a
letter on the same day to Chief Olanipekun, asking him to recuse himself from
the chairmanship of the BOB. Submission of the letter was to be deferred till
Monday, a day preceding the BOB meeting, so as to minimize the effect of any
reaction or clarification by the victim of the letter, Chief Olanipekun. I know
that the dilemmic conundrum showed up when the need to whip public sympathy and
acceptance came into the conversation. The only way was to damn the implication
and throw the letter open in the social media the same Friday- at least, the
weekend would be enough for the social media to feast on the missive and the
old man who may not even be on the social media, would not be able to react to
what he has not been served with; then the grand finale, being Tuesday, July
27, 2022, those Akpata claimed had reached out to him in the BOB, were to fire
the killer shot by moving the motion or in the worst case, pass a vote of no
confidence, while Akpata would stay far away from the scene, since he has at
least, concluded his own portion of the chores. I give it to Akpata and his
team- they are very calculative and strategic, but I suspect that the ship
could not berth safely when the people he claimed had reached out to him
(assuming the claim is true), saw the mala fide behind the ploy and the fact
that it was only Akpata playing a script all along. Invariably, the end goal
was to ridicule the old man. At least that should serve as enough lesson for
him and also operate to cut him to size. Then, it will present a laurel to
Akpata for being bold and daring. Otherwise, how else would you describe the
attack on an employer in such a big law firm for the wrongs done by one of the
employees. The refrain is the fact that the culprit is a partner in Wole
Olanipekun’s office. But even at this, nobody has cited any law in support of
this novel practice where the sons eat the sour grapes and the teeth of the
fathers are set on edge. Even those who referred to partnership law failed to
appreciate the provision of the said law.
Since I will never allow my own
emotions becloud my sense of logic, I am honestly unable to absolve
Olanipekun’s firm for allowing a person with such indiscretion as Ogunde on its
board. In fact, I feel this singular occurrence will serve as a lesson to law
offices and the Nigerian formal sector as a whole, that it takes more than
foreign certifications and technical capacity to mount critical positions in
such large establishments. Cognitive ability and emotional quotient are very
critical to leadership and Ogunde grossly fell short of this. Nevertheless, I
make bold to challenge anyone to point me to a law which prescribes
decapitation for this error.
Also worthy of observation from
Akpata’s interview is his angst for the BOB’s secretary’s failure to list the
subject of his letter in the agenda for the meeting of July 26, 2022. For
context, and as seen in the acknowledged copy of the letter put in circulation
in the social media by Akpata’s team sometime on July 26 (that is the second in
the series), the letter was only submitted to the BOB’s secretariat at exactly
9:12 am on Monday, July 25, 2022. He then forwarded a copy of the same letter
by email, copying all the Benchers at exactly 1: 59pm, ‘instructing’ the
Secretary to include that in the meeting agenda for the following day. This is
suggestive of certain unsavory administrative styles by Mr. Akpata. Would
agenda for a meeting which has been scheduled since March, 2022, be set a day
to the meeting? Does Mr. Akpata fix the agenda for his own NBA NEC which he
chairs, a day to the meeting? By my understanding of the BOB arrangement,
Akpata is only one Bencher out of the several Benchers. So, can he really issue
directives to the Secretary of the BOB to fix an item on the agenda without the
consent of the leadership of the Body? If all Benchers could instruct the
Secretary on what to fix and not fix on the agenda, would the meeting, just
like any other meeting not be rudderless and chaotic? Do agenda not come with
notices of meetings? Akpata heads a commercial law firm and I assume that even
though like some of us, he claims not to be a court goer, I presume that he is
conversant with the CAMA which mandates that the notice of company meetings
should contain the general nature of the business to be transacted in
sufficient detail.
Now, the basis for Akpata’s
vituperation remains unknown. The letter with which he entertained us on the
social media on Friday, was addressed to Chief Olanipekun. The Body of Benchers
as a corporate entity was not copied. Neither were the members copied
individually in the manner written. Therefore, it is totally unfair on the part
of Mr. Akpata to condemn his friends in the BOB, for failing to act on a letter
that was not addressed to them. Meanwhile, he claimed to be remotely present at
the meeting and we all know that there are facilities on virtual meeting
platforms to react and speak at meetings. So, when Mr. Akpata saw that his
friends were not going to strike the cat which he had belled some days earlier,
I would have thought that he would muster the same kind of courage employed in
writing and disseminating the letter, to at least, see through his project.
Recusal, as we know it, implies
that a person is sitting in an adjudicatory position and is required to step
down from that capacity for another person to sit over a trial. Every
definition of “recuse” that I know reference a judge, judex, prosecutor, or
juror. Was Akpata actually guided in the
use of the word “recusal” or he simply just needed Olanipekun to vacate his
seat as the chairman of the BOB? Since this whole thing began, the only thing
that proponents of the “recusal” theory have peddled is the parroting of one of
the twin pillars of natural justice: “nemo judex incausa sua”, meaning,
“no man can be a judge in his own cause.” Like I have mentioned earlier, an
application of this principle clearly presupposes two things, i.e., that there
is a cause and that the owner of the cause, is a judge. Hence, it is not only
legal, but also commonsensical that such owner of the cause who is also a
judge, ought not to be allowed to sit as a judge over his own cause. As I write
this piece, I am yet to be told of the cause pending against Wole Olanipekun
before any committee or court in Nigeria. While Akpata has succeeded in
misleading some innocent commentators about a synonymity between the LPDC and
the Body of Benchers, neither Akpata nor his few supporters has/have been able
to point to a single provision of the Act establishing the BOB, which grants
the BOB or even its chairman, such power to interfere in the proceedings or
decisions of the LPDC.
Like I read in one of the
commentaries, Akpata’s theory could be likened to asking all judges to recuse
themselves in every case involving the executive arm of government or the
President/Governor, simply because the judiciary is an arm of the government or
because the judge’s appointment was made by the President/Governor. It is true
Akpata has never been pretentious about his disconnection with the litigation
angle of legal practice; but then, Akpata remains a lawyer and the President of
the Association of all the lawyers in Nigeria, at that. As such, he is expected
to demonstrate at least, basic knowledge of some of these rudimentary
principles which are by now, rules of the thumb to lay men. Like I later found
out, the chairmanship tenure of the BOB lasts for just 1 calendar year, and
Olanipekun had assumed office since March, 2022. This means that by March,
2023, his term would have expired and Justice Mary Peter-Odili would assume the
seat. Even assuming that Olanipekun is the chairman of the LPDC, or that the
BOB does in fact, control proceedings at the LPDC, it is highly unlikely that
the petition against Ogunde (not even Olanipekun) will be heard any moment
soon. I challenge anyone to dispute the fact that petitions which have been
filed between an average of 2-3 years ago are yet to be heard by the LPDC. This
implies that even assuming there is a personal case against Olanipekun himself,
same is extremely unlikely to come up for hearing in the next one year. Or,
since Akpata has insinuated that the LPDC is susceptible to external
influences, does he intend to influence them to give this particular one a
special attention and an accelerated hearing over other petitions pending
before the LPDC, simply because he is convinced that Olanipekun is involved?
This vendetta and personalization are just too nauseating.
While I may not be in the best
position to counsel Olanipekun on what to do and not to do, I am of the strong
opinion that if he “steps aside” “recuses himself” or act in any manner
suggested by Akpata in his letter, the apex body of the legal profession (the
BOB) will be setting a wrong precedent too dangerous to follow. Firstly, this
will legitimize interference from the BOB to the LPDC, such that it will no
longer be a product of Akpata’s imagery, but a reality in obvious scale;
secondly, this will suggest that for every relation, friend, or associate of
the chairman of the BOB who is charged before the LPDC, the chairman of the BOB
must of necessity “step aside” or “recuse himself”; thirdly, it will also
bolden subsequent politicization of the BOB leadership, where any NBA
President, being a single member of the BOB, can stampede the leadership of the
BOB on the basis of his abstract imagination, personal satisfaction or
aggrandizement. I come in peace!
0 Comments