Re: In Defence Of Judicial Authority: Two Clarifications – By CHIDI ANSELM ODINKALU
I have in recent times come across two posts or write-ups by Professor Odinkalu containing some misinformation, which requires correction, so that they do not become accepted for all times as the true versions of the events to which they relate.
The first has to do with the events of 31st December 1983, which heralded in the Buhari/Idiagbon administration. From his account, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice George Sodeinde Sowemimo (GCON; who happens to be my late father) was out of the country at the material time. The military, in his absence, then proposed to swear in Justice Aniagolu in his place as Chief Justice, but the learned Justice declined the offer.
I have some personal knowledge of the events of that day and it has, therefore, become necessary to correct some aspects of your narrative. First, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Sowemimo, was certainly in the country at that time. What actually happened was that on the night of the coup, the military officers sent the then Secretary to Federal Government, Mr Gray Longe to the CJN’s official residence to invite my father to their gathering at Bonny Camp. In panic, my late mother sent word to alert me of the development, but happily by the time I got to the house, my father had returned from Bonny Camp.
What happened at Bonny Camp was that the military officers requested that my father should swear in General Muhammadu Buhari as the new head of state and possibly thereafter accompany him to the television station, where he was to make his maiden broadcast. The Chief Justice refused and impressed on them the fact that they had by their actions suspended the Constitution and that he could not therefore as the Chief Justice legitimately swear General Buhari in as the head of state. The military officers were persuaded by this explanation and General Buhari thereafter proceeded with the takeover without the formality of a swearing-in.
When my father got to Bonny Camp that night, he met some judges at the venue, but their presence has never been fully explained. I, however, believe that if such offer was ever made to Justice Aniagolu, it would be easy for me to appreciate his disinclination towards the offer, as judges of their ilk were not consumed by ambition and he would well have recognised that there were other justices of the Supreme Court who were senior to him and that an acceptance of such an offer would have created a very awkward situation for the judiciary, especially at the level of the Supreme Court. Anyone familiar with the level of camaraderie which existed amongst the justices of that Court at the material time will readily appreciate why such an offer would have been spurned.
The second post concerns the compulsory retirement of Hon Justice Yaya Jinadu from the High Court. An aspect of the narrative, which is incorrect, concerns the claim that Hon Justice Adefarasin, the then Chief Judge of Lagos State, unilaterally withdrew the Garba case file from Justice Jinadu. The version that I am familiar with is that it was Justice Jinadu who requested that the case file be reassigned to another judge. The Advisory Judicial Council made up of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and several other justices actually called for the case file and observed for themselves the minutes by Justice Jinadu requesting that the case file be assigned to another judge. It is therefore not correct or fair to give the impression that the case file was unceremoniously withdrawn from him by Justice Adefarasin, the chief judge. What infuriated members of the Supreme Military Council was the fact that the judge had made those false claims against the Chief Judge. This was the background to the compulsory retirement of Justice Yaya Jinadu.
Finally, you described as “infamous” the judgment of Justice Sowemimo which convicted the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. This characterisation clearly ignores the fact that the judgment was in fact upheld and confirmed unanimously by a panel of five justices of the Supreme Court [in] Michael Omisade & Ors. v. The Queen (1964) 1 All NLR, 23.
The judgment in the Omisade case was in fact preceded by the judgment in the treasonable felony trial of Chief Anthony Enahoro, who was convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by Hon Justice SO Lambo on the very same set of facts, two weeks before the judgment in the Awolowo case. Chief Enahoro’s appeal was decided by another set of five Supreme Court Justices, who affirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence from 15 to seven years.
It is unfair in the circumstances to describe the judgment of the trial Court as infamous, considering the fact that 10 reputable Justices of the highest Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons.
Seyi Sowemimo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, practices law in Lagos.
*****
My father was not compulsorily retired – A response to Seyi Sowemimo, By Abdul Jinadu
It was with some sadness that I read a document which had been apparently circulating written by a Mr Seyi Sowemimo dated 18 February 2025 entitled “Rejoinder to Recent Posts by Professor Chidi Odinkalu” in which the writer professes to address “two posts or write-ups put up by Professor Odinkalu….”
It is ironic that in purporting to correct alleged misinformation, Mr Sowemimo himself traffics in misinformation and what one may charitably describe as errors of fact. He deals with two issues: the events of 31st December 1983 and the events surrounding my late father, Mr Justice Yahya Abiodun Olatunde Jinadu’s resignation from the Lagos State High Court bench in 1984.
I have no particular position to take up with Mr Sowemimo in respect of his first issue, as I profess no particular knowledge of the matters which he discusses. However, I suspect that if he approached this first issue with the same standards of veracity and objectivity with which he addresses the second of his issues, Mr Sowemimo’s account will be found to be somewhat lacking in fidelity to the truth.
I do take a firm position with regard to Mr Sowemimo’s comments regarding my father and the circumstances in which he resigned from the bench. It is lamentable, and perhaps indicative of the standards which currently obtain, that a member of the inner bar would display such poor skills as a legal researcher so as to assert that my father was compulsorily retired. If Mr Sowemimo had carried out even the most basic research that one would expect of a first year Law student at an average university, he would have discovered that my father resigned, rather than bow to what he believed, and what history has confirmed, were egregious attempts by the Advisory Judicial Committee to interfere with the independence of the judiciary, all in the service of a military dictatorship. In his resignation letter (it is not clear on what basis one would write a resignation letter if he had been compulsorily retired), my father famously said that he was retiring “to protect his integrity and preserve the independence of the judiciary.”
I would recommend that Mr Sowemimo search out a copy of the book, A Salute to Courage, written by Richard Akinnola and published by the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi’s Chambers, which contains a more accurate account of the relevant events with reference to primary documents and interviews with some of the key actors. I am happy to provide Mr Sowemimo with a copy should he so desire. The documents establish that Mr Justice Adefarasin had unilaterally withdrawn the case file from my father on the instructions of the military dictatorship who were not pleased with the manner in which my father was conducting the trial.
My father, long after he had retired, opined that he was aware that there was an attempt to use his court to wrongfully convict an innocent man, and conscious of his judicial oath and obligations as a Muslim mandated in the holy Quran that he abide no injustice, particularly when he was appointed to the hallowed position on the bench, he was not going to allow that to happen. In my father’s words, the judiciary was the last hope of the common man.
This year marks the centenary of my father’s birth. He passed away five years ago surrounded by his loving family and confident in the judgment of history, as still being the only judge in the history of Nigeria to have resigned on a point of principle.
It would have been a cause of immense sadness to him that an individual from the profession which he so revered and one who is the son of an individual who for a very long time he considered a dear friend, would be the one attempting to rewrite history in this rather clumsy fashion. Fortunately, there are individuals alive today such as Alhaji Femi Okunnu (SAN), who was one of my father’s closest advisors and confidants when this issue arose, who were first hand witnesses to the events in question.
Abdul Jinadu is a barrister at Keating Chambers in London.
Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a lawyer, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu.
