The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has criticized the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) for initiating disciplinary proceedings against Kalu Kalu, a lawyer representing former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. The ADC accused the NBA of applying double standards and warned the association against being drawn into a political campaign against the opposition. In a statement, the party questioned the NBA's decision to take action against Kalu over his comments about Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court.
The ADC cited a June 2026 ruling by the Court of Appeal, which reportedly criticized Justice Lifu's conduct as the "highest form of judicial impertinence". The appellate court invoked a Supreme Court precedent that characterized such conduct as judicial rascality and rendered a judge unfit for the Bench. The party wondered why the NBA had not expressed similar concerns when the Court of Appeal made these remarks, arguing that the association should be more concerned about alleged judicial misconduct.
The NBA had petitioned the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over alleged insulting remarks made by Kalu against Justice Lifu during an appearance on Channels Television's Politics Today on November 11. During the programme, Kalu reportedly referred to the judge as a "coconut judge" while discussing a judgment delivered against the ADC. The party defended Kalu's right to criticize judicial decisions, insisting that professional restraint should not amount to silence in the face of wrongdoing.
The ADC maintained that comments by Kalu were not responsible for undermining public confidence in the judiciary, accusing some judicial officers and lawyers of engaging in conduct that compromises the administration of justice. The party cautioned the NBA against being perceived as taking sides in the political crisis involving the ruling party and opposition figures. The ADC respected the NBA's noble history in defending democracy and the rule of law but urged the association to be careful.
NBA President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, condemned Kalu's choice of language, insisting that disagreements with judicial decisions must be expressed through legal arguments rather than personal attacks. She stressed that judges must be held accountable for their exercise of judicial powers and that the NBA would continue to demand accountability from the Bench. However, she warned that personal attacks against judges neither establish that a judgment is wrong nor provide a legal remedy for an aggrieved litigant.
The ADC argued that respect for the judiciary should not prevent lawyers and members of the public from speaking against perceived injustice. The party concluded by defending Kalu's right to criticize judicial decisions, insisting that professional restraint should not amount to silence in the face of wrongdoing. The ADC stated that there is no respectful way to address evil and that the NBA cannot teach them one.
The controversy surrounding Kalu's remarks and the NBA's disciplinary action has sparked concerns about the role of lawyers in critiquing judicial decisions and the limits of free speech in Nigeria. The ADC's criticism of the NBA reflects a deeper debate about the relationship between the legal profession, politics, and the judiciary in the country. The outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against Kalu remains uncertain, but the ADC's statement has added to the growing discussion about the intersection of law, politics, and accountability in Nigeria.
Key points
- The ADC criticized the NBA for applying double standards in its handling of Kalu Kalu's remarks about Justice Peter Lifu.
- The party argued that the NBA should focus on addressing alleged judicial misconduct rather than sanctioning lawyers for expressing their views.
- The controversy has sparked concerns about the role of lawyers in critiquing judicial decisions and the limits of free speech in Nigeria.
