LPDC Rejects Afe Babalola’s request to revoke Farotimi ‘Law License’

The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has denied the plea from Chief Afe Babalola’s law firm, Emmanuel Chambers, to withdraw the license of lawyer and writer Tomilola Farotimi (also known as Dele Farotimi) due to alleged criminal defamation and unethical behavior.

A lawyer named Ola Faro, representing Emmanuel Chambers, filed a petition with the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

The petition alleged that Farotimi’s book, “Nigeria and the Criminal Justice System,” contained defamatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the legal profession.

Faro argued that these statements warranted Farotimi’s disbarment from the legal profession.

The LPDC Chairman, Justice Isaq Usman Bello, stated on Tuesday in Abuja that the petition could not be granted due to jurisdictional limitations.

According to the petition by Emmanuel Chambers, Farotimi’s book reportedly referenced suit number SC/146/2006 between Major Muritala Gbadamosi Eletu and HRH Oba Tijani Akinloye and others, alleging 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 gain.

Specific grievances included references to a Supreme Court judgment affecting multiple residential estates, with subsequent legal proceedings allegedly undermining the Supreme Court’s decision.

Emmanuel Chambers claimed 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.

However, the disciplinary committee, in its report (B8B/LPDC/1571/2024), concluded that the alleged offences occurred in Farotimi’s capacity as an author, not during his practice as a legal professional.

The LPDC determined that it lacked jurisdiction to address complaints about publications and advised aggrieved parties to seek redress in regular courts.

The report noted, “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.”