Afe Babalola Should Protect His Legacy In Farotimi Case, Says Effiong
Human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong has cautioned legal icon Aare Afe Babalola (SAN) against allowing the defamation case involving lawyer and activist Dele Farotimi to overshadow his decades-long legacy in the legal profession.
Effiong expressed his concerns during an appearance on Inside Sources with Laolu Akande, a socio-political program on Channels Television, aired on Sunday.
“The name Afe Babalola is an institution in this country. I don’t know if there’s a lawyer today older than him or a senior advocate. He’s a father of senior advocates,” Effiong said. “At his age, I would expect him to be mindful of his legacy and how history will judge him. This case should not define him.”
Effiong urged Babalola to exercise restraint, emphasising that invoking state institutions for a defamation case might appear excessive. “If I get to the age of 80 or 85, I’ll be circumspect. Not every offence requires a sledgehammer. Even if what was said was offensive, it doesn’t warrant invoking state institutions,” Effiong stated.
He also downplayed the gravity of criminal defamation, noting that it is not a serious offence under Nigerian law. “Even if someone is convicted of criminal defamation, the sentence is typically one or two years—not a serious felony with lengthy imprisonment terms,” he added.
The controversy began when Farotimi was arrested at his Lagos office last week and taken to Ekiti State for prosecution. The charges stem from allegations made in his book, Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System, where he accused Afe Babalola of corrupting the judiciary and influencing Supreme Court judgments. Farotimi pleaded not guilty to all 16 charges brought against him.
Effiong also criticised the police for their handling of the case and their broader conduct. “The Nigerian police are incapable of reform. They’ve been privatised, and their actions in cases like this demonstrate that,” he remarked.
He highlighted systemic issues within the judiciary and the police, saying, “The police have contributed significantly to the bastardisation of our judicial process and correctional services. When the judiciary is accused of wrongdoing, it should act with heightened self-awareness to preserve its integrity.”
Effiong warned that the case could inadvertently validate Farotimi’s criticisms of the judiciary. “If a man speaks critically about an institution he is part of, the institution must act carefully to avoid any semblance of impropriety. Otherwise, it risks vindicating his allegations,” Effiong concluded.
The case has sparked widespread debate, with many questioning the balance between defamation laws, free speech, and the appropriate use of state institutions in resolving personal grievances.
