The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has criticised the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) for initiating disciplinary proceedings against Kalu Kalu, a lawyer representing former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, over his remarks about Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court.
Politics Nigeria reports that the party accused the NBA of applying double standards and warned the association against allowing itself to be drawn into what it described as a political campaign against the opposition.
In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC said it supported constructive engagement, restraint and respect for institutions but questioned the NBA’s decision to take action against Kalu over his comments.
The party wondered why the association had not expressed similar concerns when the Court of Appeal reportedly criticised Justice Lifu’s conduct in a June 2026 ruling.
“Why is the NBA only now finding its voice because a politician, who also happens to be a lawyer, has said something that some people find uncomfortable? What has Kalu Kalu said about Justice Peter Lifu that the Court of Appeal has not already said?” the statement queried.
The ADC cited the appellate court’s description of the judge’s conduct as the “highest form of judicial impertinence”, adding that the court had invoked a Supreme Court precedent that characterised such conduct as judicial rascality and rendered a judge unfit for the Bench.
It questioned the NBA’s silence at the time, arguing that the association should be more concerned about alleged judicial misconduct than sanctioning a lawyer for expressing his views.
The party also cautioned the NBA against being perceived as taking sides in the political crisis involving the ruling party and opposition figures.
“We respect the NBA for its noble history in the defence of democracy and the rule of law. However, the Association must be careful not to allow itself to be perceived as throwing its hat into the political ring on the side of a ruling party that already boasts openly of hijacking our judicial institutions and the Nigerian Bar,” it said.
The ADC maintained that comments by Kalu were not responsible for undermining public confidence in the judiciary, accusing some judicial officers and lawyers of engaging in conduct that compromises the administration of justice.
“This is what should concern the NBA, rather than victimising a brave lawyer like Kalu for expressing his political views,” the party added.
It further argued that respect for the judiciary should not prevent lawyers and members of the public from speaking against perceived injustice.
“The NBA cannot demand respect for the judiciary while appearing indifferent to conduct that brings the judiciary into disrepute. Respect for the courts must never become a requirement for silence in the face of injustice,” the statement said.
The party concluded by defending Kalu’s right to criticise judicial decisions, insisting that professional restraint should not amount to silence in the face of wrongdoing.
“We agree that lawyers must exercise restraint. But there is no respectful way to address evil, and the NBA cannot teach us one,” it declared.
The NBA had on Friday petitioned the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over alleged insulting remarks made by Kalu against Justice Lifu during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today on November 11.
During the programme, Kalu reportedly referred to the judge as a “coconut judge” while discussing a judgment delivered against the ADC, which had triggered controversy over the political future of Atiku ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
Kalu, however, rejected interpretations that the judgment had invalidated Atiku’s presidential candidacy, arguing that there was nothing in the ruling that voided his eligibility.
Although the programme’s host cautioned him against disparaging a sitting judge and asked him to withdraw the remark, Kalu eventually agreed to do so, saying his disagreements with the judge could be expressed through a discussion of the substance of the case.
In her reaction, NBA President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, condemned the lawyer’s choice of language, insisting that disagreements with judicial decisions must be expressed through legal arguments rather than personal attacks.
She said lawyers had the right to scrutinise judgments, challenge judicial reasoning and expose errors but maintained that such rights did not justify insulting the judicial officers responsible for delivering them.
Badejo-Okusanya also stressed that judges must be held accountable for their exercise of judicial powers, adding that the NBA would continue to demand accountability from the Bench.
However, she warned that personal attacks against judges neither establish that a judgment is wrong nor provide a legal remedy for an aggrieved litigant.
