The founder of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, ABUAD, Aare Afe Babalola has said that Dele Farotimi, the human rights activist recently remanded by Ekiti Magistrate Court, will be free if he proves the allegations levelled against him.
Recalled that Farotimi had acussed Afe Babalola of corrupting the judiciary in his book titled “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System”. He was remanded on Wednesday after he was arrested at his chambers by the Ekiti State Police Command.
Addressing journalists on Friday at the Afe Babalola Bar Centre, Ado-Ekiti, Owoseni Ajayi, the lead counsel to Babalola, said Farotimi’s defamatory remarks in his book were targeted to injure the hard-earned reputation of the legal icon, which cannot be remedied by any award of damages.
A case
The former Justice Commissioner in Ekiti, joined by the duo of state’s ex-chairmen of NBA, Olasunkanmi Falade and Lawrence Fasanmi, explained that Farotimi has been inconvenient with Babalola, who won a land dispute case in 2014, where the human rights activist was neither a party nor a counsel in the case.
Babalola had filed a motion for the variation of the judgment of the Supreme Court to correct clerical errors on a certain land portion, which further affected some estates where Farotimi happened to be a lawyer to one of them.
Owoseni emphasised that Farotimi wrote the book not because any injustice was done to him, but because he could not get judgement for his client in court.
The lead counsel wondered why Afe Babalola, who was accused of corrupting the judiciary would lose cases in court and still be fined with over 30 million naira by the same Supreme Court accused of corruption.
He added that Farotimi’s action is an offence punishable under Section 59 of the Criminal Code Act, which emphasises the publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm in the public.
His words, “Before I tell you my deductions from all that have happened, allow me to first share with you the events that transpired.
… in 2013
“SUIT NO: SC/146/2005: MAJOR MURITALA GBADAMOSI ELETU & ORS V. H.R.H OBA TIJANI AKINLOYE & ORS (2013) 15 NWLR PART 1378
“The Ojomu family sold 254 hectares of land at Osapa Eti-Osa Local Government Lagos to the late Gbadamosi Bamidele Eletu in 1977. The said parcel of land was subsequently acquired by Lagos State Government in 1989.
“The Ojomu family contested the acquisition against Lagos State Government in Suit No: ID/1883/89 wherein the court set aside the acquisition by the Lagos State Government. The Ojomu family then instituted the suit at the High Court of Lagos State, claiming that title to the land had reverted to the Ojomu family despite the earlier sale of the land to late Gbadamosi Bamidele Eletu.
“The Gbadamosi Eletu family lost the case at the High Court and the Court of Appeal before briefing Aare Afe’s Chambers to represent them at the Supreme Court.
“Judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court on 13/7/2013 in favour of the Eletu family wherein the Supreme Court held that:
“Where a party has fully divested himself of all interest in land, no right vests in him to deal with the same property by way of further alienation anymore. He is caught by the maxim, nemo dat quod non habet; that is, he cannot give that which he no longer has.
“In the instant case, it was unfortunate that the respondents claimed title to the whole of their family land compulsorily acquired by the Lagos State Government including the portion earlier sold to the father of the appellants and in which they were in effective possession.
“The claim so made without disclosing the truth and excluding the said portion so sold was clearly made in bad faith and smacked of insincerity. It was very unconscionable and consequently against the principles of equity and good conscience.
“A court of law should not allow itself to be used as an engine for the perpetration of fraud, in whatever guise.
“By this judgement, the Supreme Court recognised the sale of land to the Gbadamosi Eletu family.
‘Error in hectares of land’
“You will recall that 254 hectares were sold to the Gbadamosi Eletu family.
“However, instead of the 254 hectares, Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang AKA’ AHS JSC, who wrote the lead judgement, recorded 10 hectares in error.
“Upon the delivery of the judgement, the Gbadamosi Eletu family surreptitiously employed the services of SB Joseph & Co to enforce the judgement before Afe Babalola Chambers applied for variation of the judgement. This was presumed to be because the Gbadamosi Eletu family wanted avoid paying Aare Afe Babalola’s chambers its professional fees.
“However, in 2014, the Gbadamosi Eletu family came back to Aare Afe Babalola’s Chambers. Immediately, lawyers from Aare Afe Babalola’s chambers filed a motion for variation of the judgement of the Supreme Court pursuant to Order 8 Rule 16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which allows application to be brought to correct clerical errors.
“The said motion was heard and ruling delivered on 18/3/2014 granting statutory right of occupancy to the Gbadamosi Eletu family in respect to the entire 254 hectares sold to late Gbadamosi Bamidele Eletu by the Ojomu family.
Enter Farotimi …
“Several residential estates were affected by the judgement of the Supreme Court among which were Pinnock Estate, Beach Resort, NICON Estate, Friends’ Colony Estate and Victory Park Estate etc. Mr. Dele Farotimi was a lawyer to one of these estates.
“The affected estates and individuals immediately filed fresh suits against the Eletu family with the purpose of frustrating the judgement of the Supreme Court. The Eletu family was lured by the affected estates to settle some of the suits behind Afe Babalola’s chambers despite being counsel on record.
“They filed terms of settlement with court without the knowing of Afe Babalola’s chambers.
“The Lagos State Government issued a publication indicating their awareness of the Supreme Court judgement and the need for the State to intervene in order to maintain public peace and order. The Lagos State Government invited the Eletu Family and a compromise was reached so as to avoid a massive dislocation of persons and communities directly affected by the judgement.
“Once Mr. Dele Farotimi can show proof that his assertions in the book are true, then he will be free. Until then, the law allows free speech, but not one that is calculated to injure the good reputation of another.
“All facts are verifiable. I urge Nigerians to verify and find out what the truth is first before picking a side”