In his critique of Mr. Kunle Adegoke, SAN’s response to the letter from the Nigerian Bar Association concerning the legal issues surrounding the Osun State local governments, Sarafa Ibrahim presents a passionate, albeit one-sided, argument. While he casts Adegoke’s actions as a “terrible mess of the legal profession,” a closer examination of the facts reveals that Adegoke’s position is grounded in a valid and defensible interpretation of the law, a position that Sarafa Ibrahim appears to misunderstand or deliberately misrepresented.
Sarafa Ibrahim’s central thesis rests on the notion that Mr. Adegoke is ignoring or misrepresenting the decisions of the courts, particularly the Ilesa High Court judgment and the Court of Appeal’s ruling. However, this is a deliberate mischief as the claim by Sarafa that the purported judgment of Justice Aderibigbe authorising the conduct of February 2025 local government elections has not been challenged. That purported judgment is subject of an application to set aside filed by APC which the court has refused to hear till today despite several letters asking for a date. That “judgment” is nothing but a mere travesty of proper adjudication for which the judge is currently under probe by the National Judicial Council. How Sarafa wants Adegoke to rely on that judgment and follow legal harakiri that a valid election was held in February baffles the imagination.
The core of the matter is not whether these judgments exist, but what their legal effect is in the context of the entire legal process. Adegoke’s argument, which Ibrahim conveniently sidesteps, is that the High Court’s order for new elections was legally flawed or that the subsequent election was conducted in a manner that rendered it invalid, irrespective of the existence of the court order which in itself was delivered without jurisdiction. A lawyer’s job is not simply to accept a court’s pronouncement at face value but to analyze its legal foundation and a lawyer can challenge such a decision, especially if there is a belief that it violates a higher legal principle or was based on an error of law.
For instance, the Ilesa High Court’s decision to order new elections must be viewed within the context of the law governing local government tenure. If Adegoke’s position is that the tenure of the previous administration was not legally concluded, then the High Court’s order could be seen as being in error as the judgment was even delivered without according fair hearing to the APC Chairmen and Councillors whose interests were to be affected. This is a common legal battleground, and it is entirely within a lawyer’s professional duty to articulate such a position. To suggest that holding a different legal opinion from a lower court is “making a terrible mess” of the profession is to fundamentally misunderstand the adversarial nature of the legal system and the role of legal counsel.
Furthermore, Sarafa Ibrahim’s reliance on the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of a motion to relist an appeal is a weak foundation for his argument. He claims this dismissal affirmed the Federal High Court’s decision nullifying the 2022 local government election and validated the new elections. This is a significant legal leap. A motion to relist an appeal is a basic pronouncement. Its dismissal simply means the appeal remains dismissed; it does not necessarily mean the court has ruled on the substantive merits of the case. While the court, in a purportedly concurring opinion may have made some passing remarks, as noted by Ibrahim, such remarks are not the core of the judgment and do not automatically serve to validate the election that Ibrahim wants to protect. The focus of the Court of Appeal’s decision was the procedural application before it, not the legality of the new elections. Adegoke’s point, therefore, that the new elections were not a substantive issue before the court, is a sound legal argument.
Sarafa Ibrahim’s attack on Kunle Adegoke is not a legal analysis but a political hit-piece thinly veiled in legal jargons. He attempts to use Adegoke’s SAN status against him, arguing that it should compel him to a specific political view rather than a legal one. This is a dangerous and disingenuous line of reasoning. A senior lawyer is not expected to abandon his client’s interests or his professional opinion for the sake of political expediency. A lawyer’s duty is to his client and the law as he understands it, not to the prevailing political wind or a governor’s spokesperson’s view of what is “right.”
In his rush to condemn, Sarafa Ibrahim has also inadvertently provided evidence that supports Adegoke’s position. He notes that the Court of Appeal relied on the disclosure by OSSIEC that new elections had been held. This highlights a critical point: the court’s decision was based on information provided to it, not necessarily on a full legal examination of the validity of that election. A lawyer like Adegoke would argue that an election held under what he considers legally questionable circumstances does not become legitimate simply because it was mentioned in a procedural motion before the Court of Appeal.
Ultimately, Sarafa Ibrahim’s article is an example of what he wrongly accuses Mr. Adegoke of: a politically motivated misrepresentation of a complex legal matter. He conflates a procedural ruling with a substantive one, misrepresents the role of a legal counsel, and attempts to diminish a senior lawyer’s professional integrity for partisan ends. Kunle Adegoke, SAN, is not making a “terrible mess” of the legal profession; he is doing what every good lawyer does: providing a vigorous defense of a legal position, a practice that is the very lifeblood of our justice system.
Lekan Aka, a Psychologist wrote from Osogbo, In Osogbo Local Government Area of Osun State