The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has dragged Kalu Kalu, a lawyer to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over his alleged disparaging remarks against Justice Peter O. Lifu of the Federal High Court.
The NBA petitioned the disciplinary committee following comments made by Kalu, a member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today programme on November 11.
Kalu had described Justice Lifu as a “coconut judge” while discussing a judgment delivered by the Federal High Court against the ADC, which generated controversy over its implications for Atiku’s 2027 presidential ambition.
During the programme, the lawyer disagreed with interpretations suggesting that the judgment had effectively knocked Atiku out of the 2027 presidential race. He maintained that nothing in the court’s decision invalidated Atiku’s candidacy.
However, while expressing his disagreement with the judgment, Kalu made disparaging remarks about Justice Lifu, prompting the programme’s host to caution him against attacking a sitting judicial officer.
The host also demanded that the lawyer withdraw the remark, following which Kalu agreed to do so.
“Because of time, I do withdraw it,” he said, while maintaining that disagreements with the judge could be expressed through discussions about the substance of the case.
Kalu also defended his comments by claiming that the Court of Appeal had previously made similar remarks about the judicial officer.
However, NBA President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, condemned the lawyer’s conduct, describing the language directed at the judge as unacceptable.
In a statement issued on Friday, November 13, Badejo-Okusanya said she had watched the recording of the programme and was disturbed by the remarks.
She stressed that lawyers had a professional responsibility to maintain decorum and respect for judicial officers, regardless of their disagreements with court decisions.
According to her, legal practitioners have the right to scrutinise judgments, challenge judicial reasoning and point out errors in judicial decisions.
However, she maintained that such criticism must be based on legal arguments rather than personal attacks against the judges who delivered the decisions.
The NBA president said judges must be held accountable for the exercise of their judicial powers, noting that the association would continue to demand accountability from the Bench.
She, however, warned that insulting judicial officers would not establish that a judgment was wrong or provide any legal remedy to a party dissatisfied with a court decision.
“Instead, they diminish the quality of public debate and bring our profession into disrepute,” she said.
Badejo-Okusanya explained that the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, require lawyers to maintain high standards of professional behaviour and treat courts with respect, dignity and honour.
She added that the rules also provide established channels through which complaints against judicial officers could be presented to the appropriate authorities.
The NBA president emphasised that these professional obligations applied to lawyers regardless of the platforms on which they expressed their opinions, including television programmes and other public discussions.
She noted that members of the public expected lawyers appearing on media platforms to explain legal issues, judicial reasoning and available remedies rather than resort to personal attacks.
Consequently, Badejo-Okusanya confirmed that she had forwarded a formal petition against Kalu to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, alongside the recording of the television programme.
She explained that the petition was submitted for consideration in line with established disciplinary procedures.
The NBA president, however, stressed that Kalu would be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the committee determines whether his conduct amounted to professional misconduct.
She added that the responsibility for determining whether an offence had been committed and deciding on any appropriate sanction rested with the disciplinary committee.
“Respect for due process does not, however, require the NBA to remain silent about language that falls below the standards we expect of our members,” she stated.
Badejo-Okusanya further urged lawyers to understand that the manner in which they criticise judicial decisions reflects on the reputation of the entire legal profession.
According to her, the NBA must be able to demand accountability from judges while also ensuring that lawyers adhere to the professional standards governing their conduct.
“Our credibility depends on our willingness to do both,” she added.
She urged legal practitioners to remain firm in their disagreements with judicial decisions and challenge rulings through all lawful means without abandoning the standards of professional conduct expected of them.
