Tag: Falana and Wike

• FCT minister challenges activist lawyer to list contribution to legal profession

• You’re the only Life Bencher without any case in trial, appellate court

Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), are at each other’s throat, literarily, over the Supreme Court ruling on the defection crisis rocking the Rivers State House of Assembly.

Wike had seized the platform of a press conference in Abuja to accuse Falana of lying about the defection status of 27 lawmakers in Rivers State during a Channels Television interview.

He had accused the SAN of misinformation regarding the alleged defection of the 27 Rivers lawmakers, and claimed that such misinformation from respected legal figures could destabilise the state and cause political unrest.

Wike challenged Falana to list the number of major cases he won and what he has done for the development of the legal profession that qualified him to become a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

He described Falana as being an “arrangee and errand lawyer” over his comments on National television.

The minister spoke through his Senior Special Assistant (SSA) on Public Communications and Social Media, Lere Olayinka.

The SSA, in a statement issued on Monday, said: “it is funny and ridiculous that in the mind of Falana, only those who have handled cases in trial court or appellate court are lawyers, and that a lawyer must have handled cases in trial or appellate court to be qualified for appointment as a Life Bencher”.

Olayinka, who said the FCT Minister got his membership of the Body of Benchers on merit, having contributed immensely to the advancement of legal education, asked; “Apart from going on television to make noise, what has Falana contributed to the legal profession?

“Even the SAN that he got, was it not an afterthought? Was it not years after his mates had gotten SAN?

He said: “As Governor of Rivers State, Wike was instrumental to the establishment and infrastructural development of the campus of the Nigerian Law School in Port Harcourt, which is the best centre for legal education in Nigeria today.

READ ALSO: Nigerians and lure of Ponzi schemes

“He also played major roles in the development of facilities at the Yenagoa campus of the Nigerian Law School by constructing a state-of-the-art 1,500 capacity hall and 200-bed male and female hostels, among other interventions.

“Now that he is FCT Minister, he is constructing a 10-unit housing quarters for the Nigerian Law School, Bwari, Abuja. He has also provided operational vehicles to the school to improve its operation.

“The question is; what has Falana done for the legal profession? Even in Ekiti State, where he is from, he has not contributed anything?

“The Bar Center in Ado Ekiti was built by Aare Afe Babalola (SAN), while the one in Ikere Ekiti was built by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

“Also, Aare Afe Babalola has been sponsoring Nigerian Bar Association annual lectures for years and has been assisting lawyers in Ekiti with medical treatments in his Ado Ekiti teaching hospital. What has Falana done? Nothing!

“Did Falana not fail as a politician when he went to Ekiti to contest for governor and failed woefully?”

Olayinka, who counselled lawyers like Falana to stop misleading their clients, pointed out that he (Falana) lied on National Television by saying that the Supreme Court judgment on Rivers State “had nothing to do with who is the authentic Speaker of the House” when the issue of defection of the 27 members of the House of Assembly was determined by the Supreme Court.

“It was on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment that Justice Emmanuel Obile of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt dismissed the suit filed by the Labour Party against the alleged detection, saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling had finalized the issue of defection.

“But Falana went on television to lie and deceive his client that the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the defection.

“The same Falana said three members of the Rivers State House of Assembly can carry out legislative functions despite the provision of Section 96 (1) of the 1999 Constitution that ‘The quorum of a House of Assembly shall be one-third of all the members of the House.’

“If as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, you could tell your client that Section 96 (1) of the Constitution of Nigeria is useless and in a House of Assembly of 32 members, three can sit, questions need to be asked as to how exactly you qualified as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria,” Olayinka said.

But the human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Falana, has fired back at the Minister over accusations that he (Falana) misrepresented a Supreme Court ruling on the defection crisis rocking the Rivers State House of Assembly.

In a statement made available yesterday, Falana insisted he never lied about the apex court’s decision, describing Wike’s comments as a deliberate attempt to incite the judiciary against him.

“In a recent media outburst, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Mr. Nyesom Wike, taunted me for losing a case which he won at the Supreme Court.

“He went as far as dubbing me ‘a television lawyer.’ However, I did not respond at the time because Mr. Wike is the only Life Bencher in Nigeria who has never handled a case in any trial or appellate court,” Falana stated.

Falana maintained that his commentary was a factual and constitutional analysis of the situation.

“Contrary to Mr. Wike’s assertion, I did not lie against the Supreme Court,” he said.

“All I said was that the matter of the defection of the 27 legislators was raised suo motu and determined by the eminent Justices of the apex court,” he added.

He emphasised that his comments were rooted in the fact that the issue of defection was already pending before the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt at the time.

He also pointed out that the defectors had publicly confirmed their switch from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) through affidavits and video recordings.

“It is public knowledge that Mr. Wike praised the Supreme Court to high heavens and held a thanksgiving service to celebrate the decision. However, he has decided to attack me for commenting on the same judgment — without any legal justification,” the SAN said.

Citing Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Falana insisted he had a legal right to criticise court judgments.

He challenged Wike to petition the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee if he believed there had been professional misconduct.

READ ALSO: Atiku’s metamorphosis

The human rights lawyer said: “I would have ignored the Minister’s latest gratuitous attack, but he recently urged the Body of Benchers to sanction lawyers who criticise judgements of Nigerian courts,” Falana continued.

“Unlike Mr. Wike, who calls judges names when they disagree with his politics of opportunism, I have always criticised judicial decisions with utmost decorum and in good faith,” he said.

Referencing the landmark case of Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 109) 250, Falana reminded Wike that even the Supreme Court acknowledges the fallibility of its judgements.

“As Justice Oputa famously stated, ‘We are final not because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final,’” he noted.

Falana also cited former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, who once encouraged legal practitioners to criticise court decisions constructively to ensure accountability and improve the justice delivery system.

“It may interest Mr. Wike to know that from time to time, many respected Justices commend my critique of court decisions and my defence of the judiciary. At a recent valedictory session, a retiring Supreme Court Justice referred positively to one of my critical remarks,” he said.

He concluded by warning that the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of defection laws could be weaponised by unprincipled politicians.

“No doubt, the decision of the Supreme Court is final on defection. Their Lordships said it must be proved by producing the membership register of political parties. But my fear is that this ruling could be used by unpatriotic politicians to justify political prostitution,” Falana said.