The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has rejected the request to disbar human rights lawyer, Dele Farotimi, over the allegation that he criminally defamed legal luminary and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Aare Afe Babalola.
The LPDC said it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the petition filed against Farotimi by one Mr. Ola Faro, a lawyer in Afe Babalola’s law firm.
Faro’s request came on the back of Afe Babalola’s legal battle against Farotimi over allegations of criminal defamation.
In a petition to the police, Babalola complained that Farotimi defamed him through a book he published, titled, “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System.”
Based on Babalola’s complaints, the police have arraigned Farotimi twice, first before the magistrates’ court in Ado-Ekiti and then before the Federal High Court in Ekiti.
The activist lawyer pleaded not guilty to the charges on the two occasions and he was granted bail.
He perfected the second bail granted him by the magistrates’ court on Tuesday and regained his freedom after being detained since December 4.
In the petition filed before the LPDC, Faro, an associate in Afe Babalola’s law firm, explained that Farotimi, in his book, referenced Suit No. SC/146/2006, between Major Muritala Gbadamosi Eletu and HRH Oba Tijani Akinloye and others, claiming corruption, bribery, and other unethical practices involving judicial officers and the legal community.
The petition accused Farotimi of distorting case facts, disrespecting fellow lawyers, and engaging in actions that obstructed justice for personal gains.
The petitioner alleged that Farotimi’s book violated several sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 and requested that his name be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners.
But the LPDC Chairman, Justice Isaq Bello, on Tuesday in Abuja, stated that the petitioner’s request could not be granted due to jurisdictional limitations.
In its report, tagged B8B/LPDC/1571/2024), the LPDC ruled that the alleged offences occurred in Farotimi’s capacity as an author, not during his practice as a legal professional.
The LPDC concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address complaints about publications and advised aggrieved parties to seek redress in regular courts.
“The publication is an intellectual property and not a conduct or action committed while practising as a legal practitioner. All aggrieved parties who find the publication ‘defamatory’ should ventilate their grievances through the regular courts,” the disciplinary committee stated.
