•Dele Farotimi (left) and Afe Babalola
The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has rejected a request by Chief Afe Babalola SAN’s law firm, Emmanuel Chambers, to revoke the law practising license of lawyer and author, Tomilola Farotimi, also known as Dele Farotimi, over allegations of criminal defamation and professional misconduct.
Farotimi was brought before the LPDC based on a petition authored by Ola Faro, a lawyer in Emmanuel Chambers, reports Channels TV.
The petition alleged that Farotimi, in his book “Nigeria and Criminal Justice System”, made defamatory statements against the Supreme Court and the legal profession.
However, in its report, the LPDC determined that the alleged offences occurred in Farotimi’s capacity as an author, not during his practice as a legal professional.
The LPDC concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address complaints about publications and advised aggrieved parties to seek redress in regular courts.
The LPDC chairman, Justice Isaq Usman Bello, affirmed that the petition could not be granted due to jurisdictional limitations.
The book reportedly referenced suit number SC/146/2006 between Major Muritala Gbadamosi Eletu and HRH Oba Tijani Akinloye and others, claiming corruption, bribery, and other unethical practices involving judicial officers and the legal community.
The petition from Emmanuel Chambers 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 that affected multiple residential estates and subsequent legal proceedings undermining the apex court’s decision.
The 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.
The LPDC’s report stated: “The publication is an intellectual property and not a conduct or action committed while practicing as a Legal Practitioner. All aggrieved parties who find the publication ‘defamatory’ should ventilate their grievances through the regular courts.”
