With the laudable decision by the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, to charge Ms Adekunbi Ogunde, a partner in the law firm of Wole Olanipekun SAN, Chairman of the Body of Benchers, before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee LPDC, for professional misconduct arising from an email she sent on behalf of the firm to SAIPEM Contracting Nigeria Ltd, promising the company that their principal will use his position as Body of Benchers Chairman to influence Judge.
In the email, the Partner admitted that the firm had successfully influenced Judges in other cases, naming MTN Nigeria, Equinor, and Shell Petroleum as beneficiaries.
With Ms Ogunde’s confession, the LPDC should immediately recommend an independent review of all notable cases recently handled by the firm of Wole Olanipekun SAN and Co, particularly those referred to by Ms Ogunde, to determine whether Justice was procured through the influence of the Chairman of the BoB, as confessed by his Partner.
On the authority of R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy ([1924) 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233), it is trite that justice should not only be done but should be manifestly and unmistakably seen to be done in all cases, and if this is not the case, then justice is not done.
Ms Ogunde’s confessions can only mean one thing: the Law Firm of the Chairman of the Body of Benchers relies solely on his undue influence on Judges and Judicial officers using his office to deliver the desired result for whichever party they appear for in a court case. While reading Ms Ogunde’s infamous email to Saipem, a lawyer lamented that it simply means that while other lawyers are searching through the pages of laws and law books to find solutions to their clients’ problems, the law firm of Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN and Co are searching through the BoB Chairman’s judicial contacts to find a judicial officer to influence. This is not justice, and decisions reached through undue judicial influence should be reviewed.
Furthermore, the Nigerian justice system relies heavily on the doctrine of stare decisis in the administration of justice. This doctrine makes all judicial pronouncements and decisions binding on lower courts, and when made by the Supreme Court, it is binding on all Nigerian Courts, and litigants can rely on it to persuade courts to deliver judgments in their favor. What if the BoB Chairman used undue influence on Judges to obtain these Judicial Decisions? The consequences are dire.
Furthermore, the Nigerian justice system relies heavily on the doctrine of stare decisis in the administration of justice. This doctrine makes all judicial pronouncements and decisions binding on lower courts, and when made by the Supreme Court, it is binding on all Nigerian Courts, and litigants can rely on it to persuade courts to deliver judgments in their favor. What if the BoB Chairman used undue influence on Judges to obtain these Judicial Decisions? The consequences are dire.
This professional misconduct by the BoB Chairman’s law firm has painted the Nigerian legal justice system in the eyes of the international community as a system in which judgment is only obtained through undue judicial influence. The LPDC should change this perception by recommending an independent review of all notable cases recently handled by the firm, particularly those in which Ms Ogunde admitted the firm obtained results through the influence of the Chairman of the Body of Benchers.
