The trending view in social and mainstream media is that Are Afe Babalola SAN should have traveled the civil route to press redress against the perceived libel contained in the Book NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM authored by enigmatic Dele Farotimi Esq . The case of COP v Dele FAROTIMI

The latest of those commentaries was attributed to Mr Laolu Akande ( former communication aide to Ex Vice President Yemi Osinbajo SAN ) as an except from an interview that was published in the Nigerianlawyer.com .

That piece, and other impassioned commentaries of akin sentiments , whatever the noble motive and intent , has aggravated, by its pregnant innuendo , the root cause of the travail that my brother Faro, intently and admittedly , courted by igniting the process.

Every infraction the commenters assuredly attribute to or insinuate to Are Afe Babalola SAN can simply be seen for what it loudly speaks, albeit in subdued tone. Who reviewed the petition and exercised the prerogative to prefer a charge- convinced that a prima-facie case was disclosed? - the State. Who filed the charges ? the State. Who ordered Faro’s arrest by warrant? - the State. Who ordered faro’s remand in correctional center pending determination of his admittance to bail on 10th October ? - the state .
On whom did the piece squarely place accountability for those decisions- Afe Babalola SAN. I beg to say no more .

How about the presumably wanton disparage of the entire justice system and the operatives of the institution in the vexed publication ? Can Supreme Court civilly or criminally sue/prosecute Faro for libel on its own initiative ? . If no- as I imagine we all can see- is it hard to appreciate that the only legal recourse to redress the institutional reputational damage , is to invoke the criminal sanction of prosecuting the suspect for criminal libel ? We seem not to be looking at that dimension of the case - we are fixated on the personal element of Afe Babalola SAN’s grievance due to social media influence and agenda setting . The conundrum in that regard however is whether it is not the AG federation ( instead of AG Ekiti ) that shouid authorize and institute the charges - even if in Ekiti State , Magistrate’s court or high court. That might ultimately be the jurisdictional albatross that the trial may choke on. And without doubt it will serve to advance the serendipitous benefit of Dele Farotimi Esq (emeritus ). ?

For this proposition , I cannot claim any creativity, originality or genius - I am simply re-echoing the law from the Bosom of the same law lords of the Supreme Court lampooned by our emeritus learned friend : On Need for a charge to be competent in a criminal prosecution - it is of fundamental importance that the charge of which a defendant is arraigned and stands accused must be competent to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court. Bala v. NigerianArmy (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1962) 447 SC (P. 489, para. C).

One significant explanation for the whole unfortunate incident is a literal consumption of the aphorism : physician heal thyself. That admonition should have been kept at bay by both parties by avoiding self lawyering. They assumed the risk of acting as their own counsel. Their respective personal investments in their perceived grievances cannot be vouchsafed not to blur their professional objectivity - the one that I trust they would have deployed if they were not rendering themselves pro bono services . As Abraham Lincoln was famously quoted to have cautioned ; a lawyer who represents himself had a fool for a client . They should now yield the floor to detached colleagues to navigate them to a mutually beneficial closure . It is no less undesirable to be counsel in one’s own cause any more than it is to be a judge in that cause . I have heard Chief Afe Babalola say words to this effect as a mentor to me and others fortunate to be his mentee on occasions. It’s time we paid Baba the debt we owe him by applying his prescribed medicine to soothe the pain of this better forgotten attempt to blot his enviable legacy.