Justice Odili’s home invasion: Malami may lose SAN – NBA President

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association [NBA] Olumide Akpata, has stated that Abubakar Malami, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), may be stripped of his Senior Advocate [SAN] rank if he is found to be involved in the raid of Mary Odili’s house.

Security operatives on October 29 invaded the house of Odili, a justice of the supreme court, on the claim that “illegal activities” were going on there.

While the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has denied the allegation that it was involved in the raid, Malami had said there was nothing called Joint Panel Recovery under the ministry of justice which allegedly gave the order for the search. The AGF had also ordered a probe into the invasion.

While speaking at a press briefing in Lagos on Friday, Akpata said the probe panel ought not to be set up by the AGF because he is also a suspect in the matter.

“We are calling on the president, the head of the executive arm of government, to set up an independent panel of inquiry, to look into this assault on the judiciary, which is another arm of government because there is a dark cloud hanging and all fingers are pointing at the executive as being behind this action,” he said.

“It behoves Mr president to step in immediately, to set up this panel of inquiry, which, at the minimum, will have a judicial officer and the NBA involved so that we can get to the bottom of this issue and ask who gave that instruction?

“We note that the attorney-general of the federation has reportedly agreed to make himself available for investigation. This is consistent with the position of the National Executive Council of the NBA, to the effect that the attorney-general definitely has questions to answer. However, he cannot subject himself to a panel that he sets up. This is why the panel to be set up by the president is very necessary.

“If the attorney-general is found culpable, then as a lawyer, we will take him before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee and the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee; because if indeed, he is found to have given the directives that led to the invasion of the home of the Justice of the Supreme Court, then he is not fit to hold the office he occupies presently and continue to be the recipient of the privileges the profession has accorded to him.”

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button