ADC accuses NBA of double standards over petition against lawyer

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has accused the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of double standards over its decision to petition a disciplinary panel against lawyer Kalu Kalu for making disparaging remarks about Federal High Court judge Peter Lifu.

The opposition party questioned why the association had moved against Mr Kalu when the Court of Appeal had previously rebuked the judge over his handling of a separate case involving the deregistration of political parties.

In a statement on Saturday, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, warned the NBA against allowing itself to be drawn into what the party described as a political campaign against the opposition.

“The NBA is not a political party. It must, therefore, not be seen to be behaving like a member of a political coalition against the opposition,” Mr Abdullahi said.

The statement followed the NBA’s announcement on Friday that its president, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, had forwarded a petition against Mr Kalu to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

What triggered the petition

Mr Kalu, a lawyer associated with the ADC and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, appeared on Channels Television’s Politics Today on 11 November to discuss Justice Lifu’s judgement in the party’s leadership dispute.

The judgement, delivered on 5 November, invalidated the David Mark-led leadership and decisions taken under it, including the process through which Mr Abubakar emerged as the party’s presidential candidate.

The ADC has rejected the ruling and moved to challenge it, while Mr Kalu has argued that the court’s orders did not expressly invalidate Mr Abubakar’s nomination.

During the television programme, Mr Kalu made personal remarks about Justice Lifu, reportedly describing him as a “coconut judge”.

The presenter, Seun Okinbaloye, interrupted him and objected to the language, insisting that the programme should not be used to disparage a sitting judge.

Mr Kalu subsequently withdrew the remark.

In a statement issued on Friday, Mrs Badejo-Okusanya condemned the comments, saying lawyers were entitled to challenge judicial decisions but must avoid personal attacks on judges.

She said the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, required lawyers to maintain professional standards and treat courts with respect.

The NBA president disclosed that she had submitted a formal petition, accompanied by the relevant broadcast recording, to the LPDC.

She clarified that Mr Kalu would have an opportunity to respond and that the committee would determine whether his conduct amounted to professional misconduct and whether any sanction was warranted.

ADC cites earlier appellate ruling

Responding to the development, Mr Abdullahi questioned why the NBA had focused on Mr Kalu’s remarks when an appellate court had previously criticised Justice Lifu’s conduct.

“What has Kalu Kalu said about Justice Peter Lifu that the Court of Appeal has not already said?” he asked.

The ADC referred to a 16 June ruling in which the Court of Appeal rebuked Justice Lifu for delivering a judgement ordering the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties despite an earlier appellate order staying proceedings.

The court described the judge’s conduct as judicial impertinence and judicial rascality, and suspended the enforcement of his deregistration order.

On 28 July, the appellate court overturned the judgement, holding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The earlier proceedings concerned the proposed deregistration of the ADC, Accord, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party and Zenith Labour Party.

They were separate from the ADC leadership dispute, which Justice Lifu decided on 5 November.

The earlier appellate findings did not determine the validity of the November judgment or establish that it resulted from political interference.

ADC warns against political interference

Mr Abdullahi maintained that the NBA should be more concerned about judicial accountability than what the party described as an attempt to victimise a lawyer for expressing his political views.

He accused the association of risking its credibility by appearing indifferent to alleged misconduct within the judiciary while pursuing disciplinary action against Mr Kalu.

READ ALSO: 2027 Politics Watch: Political violence, ADC’s legal internal setback

The party also alleged that some lawyers and judges were collaborating with politically connected individuals to undermine the administration of justice.

However, Saturday’s statement did not provide evidence establishing such collusion or linking the NBA’s petition to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Mr Abdullahi argued that respect for judicial institutions should not prevent lawyers from speaking against perceived wrongdoing.

“We agree that lawyers must exercise restraint. But there is no respectful way to address evil, and the NBA cannot teach us one,” he said.

In its earlier statement, the NBA said judicial accountability and professional discipline were not mutually exclusive.

The association said it was entitled to demand accountability from judges while insisting that lawyers observe professional standards.

However, that statement preceded the ADC’s latest allegations.

PREMIUM TIMES made two telephone calls and sent a WhatsApp message seeking the NBA’s response to the party’s accusations, including whether the association took any action following the Court of Appeal’s earlier criticism of Justice Lifu.

No response had been received as of the time this report was prepared.