Skip to main content

Bayo Ojo Faces Another Charge of Professional Misconduct

April 26, 2007

The litany of charges of professional misconducts against the out-going Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Bayo Ojo continues this week as he faces yet, another possible investigation by the Nigerian Bar Association for professional misconduct.


 

According to Saharareporters investigation, lawyers representing Chief Anthony Enahoro, Dr. Arthur Nwankwo and Hafsat Abiola, daughter of Chief M.K.O Abiola, acclaimed winner of June 12, 1993 presidential election, by far adjudged the most credible election in the history of Nigeria by any international standards, in their suit against the former Nigerian military dictator have filed charges of professional misconduct against Chief Bayo Ojo.  

 

In a twenty-four page grievance to the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, copies of which were also forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and International Law Commission (ILC)  to which the Attorney-General was recently elected,  the attorneys, Messrs Kayode Oladele, Austin Agomuoh and Akin Ogunlola want the NBA to investigate Chief Bayo Ojo for his roles in subversion of justice, suppression of evidence and intimidation of opposing counsel in the human rights abuses case currently pending before a U.S Court.

 

The attorneys argued among others that in order to muffle evidence and frustrate the legal process, suppress evidence that the Plaintiffs would require to prove their case against Gen. Abubakar and in a way create a legal tension between Nigeria and the U.S, the Attorney-General improperly provided legal advice to Nigerian Government to file an originating Summons against Gen. Abubakar, naming the undersigned who are Plaintiffs attorneys respectively as co-respondents. 

 

Not only did Chief Ojo provide the said unprofessional advice, upon receiving a copy of Judge Kennelly’s Order compelling Gen. Abubakar to appear in the U.S for deposition on April 13, 2007, Chief Bayo Ojo rushed to Abuja High Court presided by Judge Nyako with a Motion for interim injunction to restrain Gen. Abubakar from traveling to the U.S in obedience to the U.S Court’s Order to give evidence in the case.

 

Chief Ojo personally argued the Motion and obtained an Order of the Abuja High Court restraining Gen. Abubakar from appearing to testify in the case regarding the arrest and detention of Chief M.K.O Abiola, thus giving Gen. Abubakar a legal shield to disobey a Court Order directing him to be deposed and also to provide documents that would assist the Plaintiffs in proving their case against him.

 

The lawyers noted that the matter is of serious concern and warrants urgent attention of the Committee and the Nigerian Bar Association. The attorneys therefore submitted that Chief Ojo’s action represent an act of defiance to subvert the course of justice and rule of law which constitutes an unethical activity and a professional misconduct per se. Hence, the Attorney-General’s acts violate his duty of faithful allegiance to the truth. His deliberate deceit and massive cover up of evidence favorable to the plaintiff’s case also constitute an interference with the administration of justice.  

According to the grievance, a lawyer serves two masters, his client and the law. As a servant of the law, he is an officer of the Court, charged with the duty to see that justice is done; above all, he is required to treat the Court with candor. He owes to his client, the duty of fidelity, but he owes the duty of good faith and honorable dealing to the judicial tribunals before whom he practices his profession.

The Attorney-General not only disengaged himself from his professional duty as an officer of the Court by moving to suppress evidence favorable to the adverse party, he accused the Plaintiffs attorneys who in the course of their professional duties to their clients seek to obtain relevant discovery from Gen. Abubakar of engaging in an “illegal activity punishable under the Nigerian law. 

Chief Ojo deliberately suppressed evidence. Accordingly, his actions not only violate the administration of justice, but also subvert that loyalty to the truth without which he cannot be a lawyer in the real sense of the word.

The lawyers argued further that Nigeria is not named as a party in the U.S case against Abubakar and the information sought to be obtained from Gen. Abubakar is not protected under the official secrets Act. “This is because most of the issues at stake in the U.S case, namely, the detention of persons, extra-judicial killing and other human rights violations under the military were freely discussed even before the general public and were dramatized live on Television during the sitting of the Oputa Panel that was instituted by the Current administration to investigate these abuses. As a matter of fact, the President was among several other Nigerians that persuaded Gen. Abubakar to attend the Panel’s sitting when he ignored the invitation of the Panel to testify before it”, said the attorneys. 

Further, “The information which the Plaintiffs seek to obtain in the instant case is not more confidential or classified than what Gen. Abubakar would have testified to had he appeared before the Oputa Panel or what other people, particularly, former military officers and principal members of Gen. Abacha’s Administration testified to during Panel’s sitting that lasted for months. In addiction, the transcripts of the Panel’s hearing that uncovered several gross violation of human rights by the military are public documents. Besides, if Gen. Abubakar had appeared before Oputa Panel, the Plaintiffs would have purged the transcripts of his testimony for their use in the present suit instead of deposing him”, they continued.

The lawyers therefore want the Nigerian Bar Association to resolve the following issues among others:

·   Whether by his filing a preemptive lawsuit in Nigeria to forestall the Plaintiffs from obtaining discovery that would lead to a favorable resolution of their case against Gen. Abubakar, the Attorney-General has not deliberately engaged in a perversion of justice and interfered with the administration of justice therefore, amounting to professional misconduct and an act unbecoming of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

·   Whether the Attorney-General has not engaged himself in an act of defiance to subvert the course of justice and rule of law which constitutes an unethical activity and a professional misconduct and an act unbecoming of a senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

·    Whether the Attorney-General has not imperiled the course of justice by actively participating and encouraging disobedience to court Orders and seeking to withhold evidence favorable to the Plaintiffs therefore amounting to professional misconduct and an act unbecoming of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN);

· Whether as a servant of the law, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and an officer of the Court, charged with the duty to see that justice is done, he has treated the foreign Court with required candor and met the internationally acceptable standard expected of an Attorney-General.

<· Whether it is professional misconduct for the attorney-General  and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) to file a lawsuit against plaintiffs attorneys , caring out their lawful duties to their clients  in his bid to suppress evidence;

· Whether it is a professional misconduct for the Attorney-General and an act unbecoming of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) to intimidate the Plaintiffs attorneys by filling a lawsuit against them and accusing them of illegal activity for carrying on their lawful professional duties to their clients.

· Whether the Attorney-general as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) is not discrediting the Nigerian legal system by instituting preemptive lawsuit to suppress evidence and ridicule the Order of a foreign court.

·   Whether the attorney-General’s actions do not constitute a violation of private international law on the recognition of foreign judgment and Orders.

The lawyers concluded that if the Nigerian Bar Association answers any of the questions in the affirmative, severe sanctions must be imposed on the Attorney-General, Chief Bayo Ojo for unprofessional conduct. 

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });