Home Blog Page 420

As trial nears its end, monster of Avignon pleads for forgiveness from his wife for drugging and abusing her

Gisele Pelicot (R) sits beside her daughter Caroline Darian (C) and her son (L) at the courthouse during the trial,
  • 50 ‘rapists’ make their excuses

By Nick Fagge

The man dubbed the Monster of Avignon after drugging his wife and inviting dozens of men to have sex with her arrived at court this morning as a judge prepares to announce the fate of his co-defendants who could face 600 years in jail. 

Dominique Pelicot, 72, invited strangers around to their home to have sex with his unwitting wife Gisele Pelicot after knocking her out with prescription sleeping pills.

Details of the unprecedented scale of Pelicot’s warped campaign to watch his wife being abused over more than a decade emerged during a trial that began in September and resumes today – a case which has horrified the world.

The trial will reach its conclusion with the dozens of men accused hearing verdicts and if they are convicted, the judge will proceed to sentence them to jail terms of between four and 18 years each, meaning they face more than 600 years in prison.

The only defendant likely to receive the maximum sentence of 20 years is Pelicot himself. He spoke publicly for the last time this morning to apologise for the betrayal of his wife.

The retired electrician praised Gisele Pelicot’s courage and appealed to her and their children for forgiveness for the terrible ordeal he had put them through by his twisted pursuit of sexual gratification.

Sitting in the dock of the Vaucluse Criminal Court, the 71-year-old, said: ‘Hello, I would like to start by saluting the courage of my ex-wife, who was forced to put up with the suggestions that she was complicit [in the rapes].

‘I ask her, the rest of the family, to please accept my apologies: I regret what I have done. I am sorry for making them suffer for over four years.  

‘I am just a working man and I want to tell my family that I love them, you have the rest of my life in your hands. I ask for your forgiveness.’

The bravery of his victim wife, Madame Pelicot, in allowing her identity to be revealed around the world – and the dignity with which she conducted herself throughout the trial – has seen the case become a cause célèbre for campaigners against sexual violence.

Mme Pelicot held her head high as she heard and watched films covertly taken by her husband of 50 years in which she was abused at least 90 times by strangers he had invited into their home.

Having waived her legal right to anonymity in order to ensure the case received the maximum amount of publicity, the 72-year-old grandmother refused to be shamed – but instead repeatedly directed any shame at her abusers.

As interest in the case grew, Madame Pelicot was clapped and cheered as she arrived at court and left at the end of the day. 

Graffiti honouring her bravery was daubed on Avignon’s medieval stone walls and protests in support of her erupted all over France.

Opening proceedings in the final week of this four-month trial, Judge Roger Arata told the court that all matters had now been concluded and the only procedure left was for the defendants to make their final statements.

Judge Arata declared: ‘It remains to give the floor to each of the accused. And I ask the question that applies to all of them: do you have anything to add in your defence?’

Pelicot – who is accused of drugging his wife of 50 years and inviting strangers he recruited on the internet to rape his wife – was the first to speak.

He thanked his lawyer, the court staff and his gaolers for treating him with the respect few believed he deserved.

Pelicot told the court: ‘I would like to thank the court for simple reasons: it allowed me to remain seated each time I entered the room, which was interpreted as a lack of respect during the proceedings. Which is not the case. Without protection, you die in prison.’

He continued: ‘I was saddled with names and titles when I would prefer to be forgotten. 

‘I find it difficult to continue because I would like to thank the prison officers who have been humane and professional towards me. I thank you, Mr Zavarro, for your loyalty.

He concluded by claiming the ultimate punishment was the loss of his family. He said: ‘The deprivation of not seeing one’s loved ones is worse than the deprivation of freedoms.’

Pelicot was followed by the dozens of co-accused, many of whom continued to protest their innocence.

Pelicot’s accomplices packed into the courtroom in Avignon for the final week of the trial that has shone a light on France’s worst sex case in decades. 

Dressed casually in jeans, hoodies, thick sweaters and t-shirts the co-defendants still at large chatted amongst each other.

Just a few feet away Madame Pelicot appeared in good spirits as she talked with her lawyer Stephane Babonneau.

Dressed in a cream coloured sweater and a beige scarf, the courageous grandmother smiled as she chatted with her defence team – and the court appointed welfare officer who has accompanied her throughout the four-month-long trial.

Madame tipped her head back as she listened to her ex-husband.

And she sat motionless as she listened to Pelicot’s accomplices beg for her forgiveness.

One defendant said: ‘If I had the opportunity for restorative justice for you I would do it willingly.’

Madame Pelicot looked ahead, refusing to lock eyes with her abusers.

One by one Pelicot’s accomplices took the microphone to offer their excuses for raping unconscious grandmother Gisele, and to ask for her forgiveness in almost equal measure.

After just over an hour, trial judge President Roger Arata, announced that he and his four assisting judges would now retire until Thursday morning when they will begin to deliver the verdicts of the accused.

Prosecutors have based their sentencing demands to the court for each defendant on aggravating factors including how many times they came to the Pelicot home and the extent of documented sexual contact.

By this assessment the worst offender, for whom prosecutors suggest an 18 year tariff, was a 63-year-old known as Romain V. He was knowingly HIV-positive yet is accused of raping Mme Pelicot on six separate occasions without wearing protection.

Because the incidents were meticulously recorded by Pelicot the defendants have been unable to deny sexual contact with the victim – but most have claimed they were unaware of the circumstances Pelicot had engineered.

French criminal law defines rape as any sexual act committed by ‘violence, coercion, threat or surprise’ but makes no reference to any need for consent – an aspect that campaigners have fixed on as outdated and wrong.

The trial heard in disturbing detail how while outwardly a doting husband, retired electrician Dominique, was secretly engineering what may possibly be the greatest marital betrayal of all time.

And as the evidence has been revealed, his 50 accomplices have wriggled and squirmed and repeatedly tried to protest their innocence.

One defendant told police; ‘rape is not possible if a woman’s husband is present’, another claimed a man; ‘can do what he likes with his wife’, while most said they believed they were taking part in a ‘kinky sex game’ in which Madame Pelicot was a willing party.

One defence lawyer, the head of the criminal bar in Avignon, Master Guillaume de Palma, even told the court rape ‘cannot occur’ if the perpetrator did not ‘mean to’. His remarks, in the second week of the trial, prompted outrage across France and added to the growing calls for justice for women.

Women gather in support of Gisele Pelicot outside the Avignon courthouse 

However, the scores of videos of the unbridled truth, taken by Pelicot over ten years and shown in court to the shame-faced defendants and members of the public who queued every day to watch the real-life drama play out, left very little room for doubt.

Tossed around like a ‘rag doll’, and often snoring, Madame Pelicot, could be seen to be clearly unconscious and unable to give her consent.

In an electrifying 90-minute testimony, she told the hushed Avignon court: ‘I was sacrificed on the altar of vice.

‘My body might have been warm, but I was like a dead person. I was a dead woman, and these men take advantage of me, they defile me, they treat me like a bin bag.

‘They didn’t rape me with a gun or knife to their heads – they raped me in full consciousness. They treated me like a ragdoll. It is unbearable, and I don’t know if I will ever be able to get up [off the floor] again.’

Her abusers, most from within a 50 mile radius of the Pelicots’ home, were seemingly ordinary men from all walks of life.

The fact that broadly represented a cross section of French society saw them collectively described as Monsieur-Tout-Le-Monde – or Mr Everyman.

There was veteran chief fireman Christian Lescole, 57, who protested in court at being locked up after spending ‘a lifetime saving people’. Police also found naked pictures of children on his computer following his arrest.

Moroccan-born hospital nurse Redouan El Farihi screamed his innocence before a video of him assaulting Madame Pelicot while she lay motionless was played in court.

There was ‘sexual predator’ Jerome Vilela, a supermarket worker, who was described by his ex-partner as a ‘sex-addict’ and told a prison psychologist he saw sex as a ‘conjugal right’.

Successful builder Thierry Parisis told the court he had fallen into a spiral of depression and alcoholism following the death of his son in a car crash. He added he remembered very little about his encounter with Madame Pelicot.

Retired marine fire-fighter Jacques Cubeau said he was lonely.

There was IT worker Lionel Rodriguez, 44; painter and decorator Husamettin Dogan, 43; odd-job man Mathieu Dartus, 53; motorcycle mechanic and racer Hugues Malago, 39; and farm worker Andy Rodriguez, 37.

And there was Romain Vandevelde, a 63-year-old man with HIV who visited the Pelicots on six different occasions between December 2019 and June 2020 to rape Madame Pelicot and refused to wear a condom.

These are just a handful of the strangers that took part in the mass rape that has put the tiny village of Mazan, that lies in France’s most picturesque region, Provence, on the map. 

Retired electrician Dominique Pelicot met each of his accomplices on an internet site for voyeurs called ‘a son insu’ which translates as ‘without them knowing’.

Over almost ten years he invited strangers – up to three times a week – to come to the couple’s retirement chalet to rape his wife, which he had rendered unconscious by putting powerful sedatives in her dinner and glass of rose wine.

To ensure they weren’t seen, Pelicot told the would-be rapists to park well away from the house, avoid wearing after-shave or smelling of cigarette smoke, and ensure they left nothing behind in the bedroom.

He choreographed the multiple rapes of his sleeping wife with such attention to detail that a lawyer described him in court as a ‘perverted Steven Spielberg’.

The potentially fatal doses of sedatives forced upon Madame Pelicot had a devastating effect on her health. She lost weight, her hair fell out and she suffered lengthy blackouts. Her doctor feared she was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. She also became infected with four sexually transmitted disease. She had no idea how.

The abuse only stopped when Pelicot was arrested in October 2020 for taking pictures of women’s underwear on his phone at his local supermarket – a tacky form of voyeurism known as ‘upskirting’.

A search by gendarmes of his home discovered some 20,000 lurid images and images of his wife being violated in the marital bed on computer files and mobile phones.

The following month, while returning home from Paris where she had been looking after her grandchildren, detectives asked Madame Pelicot to come to the police station.

At first, she did not recognise the woman lying on the bed unconscious being abused in the photograph that the policeman showed her. Then she saw it was herself and that she had been used by her husband of 50 years in the depraved sex scenes he filmed.

‘That day will be seared in my memory for ever,’ Madame Pelicot told the court. ‘It was a scene of barbarism. I was in a state of shock.

‘I remember asking for a glass of water, then a psychologist came into the room, they said my husband had been detained – and everything just collapsed for me.

‘We were 50 years together, with three children and seven grandchildren, and our friends said we were the ideal couple. I just couldn’t take it in.’

Returning alone to the house where she had been so cruelly betrayed, she called her grown-up children – David, Caroline and Florian – to tell them their father was a monster.

Three days later she arrived in Paris with just two suitcases and her dog, never to return to Mazan.

Asked before the trial court how she reacted on learning how she had been abused by the father of her three children, she replied: ‘He disgusts me. I feel dirty, defiled, betrayed. It was a tsunami. I was hit by a high-speed train.’

Pelicot told investigators he carried out his warped fantasies because he was ‘bored’ and blamed his arrest for ‘disrupting his happy life’. He also hinted that he continued to hold a grudge against his long-suffering wife for a brief affair she had over 30 years ago.

The grown-up children have all disowned their father.

But courageous Gisele – whose divorce from her perverted ex-husband was confirmed in the days before the trial began in September – vowed to keep her marital name during the proceedings to protect her children and grandchildren who are also called Pelicot.

However, the family’s pain did not stop there.

During the four-year police investigation into this most cruel case of betrayal detectives uncovered a file entitled: ‘My Daughter Naked’.

In it were photographs of Caroline Darian, as a young woman, lying asleep on a bed, dressed in lingerie and partially naked.

The pictures were taken at the family home in Villiers-sur-Marne, near Paris, before 2013 when Pelicot retired and moved to Mazan in the south of France.

Caroline Darian has written a book about the trauma she suffered after learning her father, who she had idolised, was serial sex attacker, entitled: ‘I No Longer Call You Daddy.’

At different stages of the long trial Caroline Darian confronted her father about whether he had sexually abused her – as well as her mother – storming out of court several times in distress.

But in his final statement Pelicot admitted to the court that he was a sex addict but denied drugging his daughter Caroline and taking photographs of her semi-naked on a bed dressed in her mother’s lingerie.

Turning to his daughter, he said: ‘Caroline, I never did anything to you.’

But in a furious outburst Caroline Darian screamed: ‘You are lying! You’re not telling half the truth, even about your ex-wife! You will die alone like a dog and caught out in lies!’

Under questioning from his lawyer, Pelicot accepted he would ‘die like a dog’ in jail for the crimes he had committed, but refused to give his beloved daughter the truth she needed.

And while France’s worst husband knows he has seen his family for the last time, he is expected to appear in court again, as Pelicot faces further allegations of rape and murder after France’s cold case bureau in Nanterre linked him with at least six hitherto unsolved crimes.

Pelicot has admitted the rape of a young estate agent in the Paris suburb of Villeparisis in 1999 but denies being involved in the murder of another estate agent Sophie Narne in another Paris in another suburb eight years earlier and other similar cases.

The Pelicot case in terms of number of defendants is not the largest sex crime case in French history – in that regard it is eclipsed by the child-sex rings that operated in the city of Angers in the early 2000s.

But the globally high profile trial has meant that it is almost certainly the most notorious.

This article written by NICK FAGGE in AVIGNON was originally published as: ‘Monster of Avignon is seen arriving at court before pleading for forgiveness from his wife for drugging and abusing her: 50 ‘rapists’ make their excuses while Gisele Pelicot looks on as trial nears its end’ by Mail Online on 16th December 2024.

Milking Nigeria to death

By Punch Editorial Board

The Obi of Onitsha, Nnaemeka Achebe, has pointedly employed the milking-the-cow-to-death metaphor to warn political leaders against the monumental corruption eviscerating the country’s monolithic economy and short-changing the people.

“People go into public office not to serve the public, but to serve their interests. Either we keep doing that and milk the cow to death, or we do the opposite and place Nigeria above all else,” Obi said recently.

These words resonate loudly on the streets.

The metaphor addresses the mindless plundering of the country’s oil resources by leaders who should ordinarily create and manage the commonwealth with rectitude.

The World Bank says, “Oil alone accounts for 40 per cent of the country’s GDP, 70 per cent of budget revenue, and 95 per cent of foreign exchange earnings.”

Unfortunately, the leaders have grossly mismanaged the oil-dependent economy and refused to feed it with the nutrients of innovations, accountability, and transparency.

Worse, they have abandoned other resource alternatives, putting the economy in shambles.

After its discovery, oil has been subjected to massive, organised theft. The Federal Government and the sub-nationals allocate humongous funds to oil-powered budgets but with little performance every year.

Former President Muhammadu Buhari said Nigeria lost $150 billion in oil income to looting in the 10 years to 2015.

The state governors collect monthly allocations, waste it, and leave the people in misery. Education is comatose, the health sector is on its knees and the economy is generally in the woods.

Former ICPC Chairman, Bolaji Owasanoye (SAN), said in 2021 that Nigeria lost $10 billion to illicit financial flows.

The country is littered with abandoned and delayed projects. The Chartered Institute of Project Managers of Nigeria estimates that “abandoned projects stand over N17 trillion.”

The Ajaokuta Steel Project, which was conceived 45 years ago to turn around the industrial development of Nigeria and has “gulped $10 billion in 43 years,” has yet to take off.

The Minister of Steel Development, Shuaibu Audu, said reviving the gargantuan project would still gulp from $2 to $5 billion.

Reconstruction works on the Lagos-Ibadan, Sagamu-Ore-Benin, and Ibadan-Oyo-Ogbomoso-Ilorin expressways are taking forever. Many other expressways suffer from a similar fate.

While the Buhari regime borrowed N3.1 trillion to fund the budget deficit in 2022, the Bola Tinubu administration borrowed $2.21 billion to fund N9.18 trillion ($5.46 billion) for the same purpose in 2023.

The management of NNPC, the country’s metaphorical cow, leaves much to be desired.

The first financial report of the NNPC was released in 2020 after over four decades of its operations, with all the refineries posting negative results. This month, VOA quoted NNPC saying that Nigeria loses 200,000 bpd or about $10 billion annually to theft.

Nigeria’s leaders who are supposed to design its road map to greatness are its worst locusts.

Former Head of State, Sani Abacha looted more than $3 billion between 1993 and 1998.

The $12.4 billion Gulf Oil War windfall would later become a subject of litigation and controversy.

While the EFCC said it traced $115 million stashed away to influence the 2015 general elections to a former minister, “at least N47.2 billion and $487.5 million in cash and properties have been traced to the (same) minister by the anti-graft agency.”

The anti-corruption agency seized a 753-duplex estate linked to a yet-to-be-disclosed public officer in Abuja recently.

It has arraigned a former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, for alleged N80.2 billion fraud.

Successive governments leave tales of corruption, thus leading a stupendously blessed country into needless borrowing 64 years after independence and 64 years after the discovery of oil in commercial quantities.

In sane climes, leaders build structures and allow institutions to drive governance and check corruption. However, Nigeria’s leaders refuse to build institutions and have elevated corruption to damaging levels.

In 2022, a court in China sentenced a former justice minister, Fu Zhenghua, to life imprisonment for bribery involving over $16 million. Unfortunately, Nigeria plays politics with corruption.

Ex-Plateau State Governor Joshua Dariye was jailed for mismanaging the state’s N1.16 billion funds but was later ignominiously pardoned. His Bayelsa State counterpart, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, was found guilty in London for laundering multimillion pounds and jailed in Nigeria for embezzling multibillion naira funds of the state but was also later ingloriously pardoned.

When Uzor Kalu was convicted for 12 years for N7.56 billion fraud, the verdict was later overturned on a flimsy technical ground that the trial judge who read the judgement was a vacation judge!

The inglorious chain of corruption with impunity walks on all fours countrywide.

In serious climes, leaders go into public office to serve, and they come out poorer.

US President Bill Clinton left the White House poorer than he assumed office. While US presidents pay for their meals, Nigerian legislators receive mouth-watering sums as monthly earnings.

The senators earn N21 million monthly among other emoluments. When news filtered that ranking senators recently received N500 million (annually) for phantom constituency projects, the senator who exposed the secret was suspended.

The monumental sums received by local councils have always gone down the drain.

Nigeria’s shambolic elections that always end up in the courts contribute to milking the cow to death.

At least 50 elections were nullified by tribunals sitting in different parts of the country in the 2015 elections in November that year.

The Independent Electoral Commission said it ran a budget of N75 billion for the polls.

No doubt, the oil cow is tired and waddling to Golgotha. The government must do something to revive it and inject accountability, transparency, and functionality into its outcomes.

Diversification breeds other types of cows. The government must return to its diversification policy that will radically put its agriculture, mining, creative economy, and other revenue-generating sectors in the ranch of productive cows.

The 2005 National Political Reforms Conference set up by President Olusegun Obasanjo says in its report that every state has at least five minerals in commercial quantity under its soil. All anti-investment laws should thus be amended.

The states should have the power to explore mineral resources.

Other countries are exploring alternative energy sources while applying technology to manage their oil business chain. The federal and state governments must imbibe these initiatives and give Nigeria’s economy a breath of fresh air.

Turning Nigeria’s economy around is a collective effort.

Legislators must prioritise Nigeria by enacting pro-governance and development laws.

The judiciary should introduce radical reforms that will purge it of bad eggs and re-earn its place as the last hope of the common man and the country.

The people should take an active part in politics and governance, and civil society organisations should play a more active role in monitoring the leaders.

There is a need to review Nigeria’s expensive electoral system, which gives electoral victory to the highest bidder. The people and civil society must push for an electoral system that will make the cost of contesting elections inexpensive and people-driven. It is the only way to make competent and good people contest elections and make the people own their democracy.

Prevention is the key to averting corruption. The Due Process Office introduced years back should be revitalised by all three tiers of government for accountability and transparency purposes so that the dying cow can live, its young ones can be well nourished, and the country can attain prosperity and development.

Man eats £4.9m worth banana!

A cryptocurrency entrepreneur has kept his promise and eaten a banana he bought for $6.2m (£4.9m).

Justin Sun snapped up viral art piece Comedian – consisting of a single banana duct-taped to a white wall – in an auction at Sotheby’s in New York last week.

The Chinese-born businessman immediately revealed his plan to destroy the artwork by enjoying the fruit as a snack and at a news conference today, he delivered on his word.

At a Hong Kong hotel, the 34-year-old took a bite and told reporters: “It’s much better than other bananas. It’s really quite good.”

After purchasing Comedian, Mr Sun previously said the piece “represents a cultural phenomenon that bridges the worlds of art, memes, and the cryptocurrency community”.

“Additionally, in the coming days, I will personally eat the banana as part of this unique artistic experience, honouring its place in both art history and popular culture,” he vowed.

FILE - Artist Maurizio Cattelan's piece of art "Comedian" hangs on display during an auction preview at Sotheby's in New York, Monday, Nov. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, File)
Image:Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian debuted at an art festival in 2019. Pic: AP

The piece, by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, became an online phenomenon when it debuted at Art Basel in Miami Beach in 2019, and sparked debate over whether it was a joke or commentary on the art world.

Comedian was first made with a banana that cost just 25 US cents (20p) and it’s not the first time the artwork has been eaten.

A performance artist took the banana from the wall and ate it back in 2019, and a south Korean student did the same last May.

Mr Sun can technically replace the fruit again, as his $6.2m purchase grants him a certificate of authenticity and the authority to duct-tape any banana to a wall and call it Comedian.

The entrepreneur founded cryptocurrency TRON and recently invested $30m into President-elect Donald Trump’s crypto project.

Culled from Sky news

Tinubu, Atiku and the Lion’s share

By Lasisi Olagunju

Adrian Louis is a witness to what popcorn does in a movie theatre. The American poet’s poems are apparently for Nigeria, a nation in eternal transition: “We gave them corn which, once popped/ into miniature buttered clouds/ gave us the opportunity to watch ourselves: / bloodthirsty, slow-thinking and grunting.”

We need lots of popcorn as we go into the new year. An Atiku Abubakar vs Bola Tinubu spar started last week over where the next president should come from and who the person should be. Tinubu’s man, George Akume, fired the first salvo. He demanded that, “President Tinubu, as a southerner, should be allowed to have a second term, meaning that those eyeing the presidency from the North in 2027 should look beyond that year by waiting till 2031.”

Almost immediately, Tinubu’s ex-friend, ex-(political) bedmate, Atiku Abubakar, came out roaring. He counter-asked that the next president must come from his part of the country, the North, and queried Akume’s sense of justice. “Where, then, does true equity and fairness reside? By the year 2027, the South will have enjoyed 17 years of leadership—eight years under Obasanjo, five years under Jonathan, and four years under Tinubu—while the North will have experienced only 11 years, with Yar’Adua serving three and Buhari eight. This results in a disparity of six years between the North and South, casting a shadow over the balance of power.” That was from Atiku Abubakar.

Tinubu’s man said that Tinubu should be the sole beneficial owner of the future. Atiku spoke about “equity and fairness”. He said, “The South will have enjoyed 17 years of leadership…” I read him two, three times and I was tempted to ask him: Did Nigeria start to exist in 1999 when his calculation started? If fairness is the talk, what would have been more equitable than starting our maths from independence, 1960? And, looking forward, why should the future be locked in for just those two lions in our jungle? Why must the future be a continuation of the story of those two who have been major (mis)writers of our democratic story since 1999? Should they forever think all others are stags, food for their lions?

People who reason that way obviously think ‘the lion’s share’ should be for the lions. Aesop, storyteller of antiquity, puts what those two think of us in perspective. The story is reproduced here verbatim as told in folklore:

A long time ago, the Lion, the Fox, the Jackal, and the Wolf agreed to go hunting together, sharing with each other whatever they found.

One day the Wolf ran down a deer and immediately called his comrades to divide the spoil.

Without being asked, the Lion placed himself at the head of the feast to do the carving, and, with a great show of fairness, began to count the guests.

“One,” he said, counting on his claws, “That is myself the Lion. Two, that’s the Wolf, three, is the Jackal, and the Fox makes four.”

He then very carefully divided the meat into four equal parts and said: “I take the first portion because of my title since I am addressed as king; the second portion you will assign to me, since I’m your partner; then because I am the strongest, the third will follow me; and an accident will happen to anyone who touches the fourth.” The other animals kept quiet – they dared not talk, and got nothing for their efforts; the king of the jungle took all the benefits. That is the meaning of might; it is always right. It is also the root of ‘the lion’s share’ as an English expression.

Thomas Grey Wicker was an American political reporter and columnist. He spent a large chunk of his 85 years on earth reporting and writing books. He wrote ‘Facing the Lions’ – a political novel published in 1973. Before then, he wrote ‘The Kingpin’; he wrote ‘The Devil Must’; he wrote ‘The Judgment.’ Then he wrote ‘A Time to Die.’ He wrote many more books, three of them under the pseudonym ‘Paul Connolly.’ But it is to his ‘Facing the Lions’ I turn in discussing Tinubu and Atiku and their ambition to be boss forever. Charmaine Allmon Mosby’s ‘Among the Dog Eaters’, an excellent review of the novel, makes it easy for me to use Wicker here. I encounter in their character Bull Durham Anderson, a political leader who “plays upon the emotions of the masses for power, profit, and place…” and who “does not mind if the ends are contaminated by the means…” Mosby is surprised that the man “frankly admitted misuse of his power, and yet the voters repeatedly returned him to office…” Why? We ask that question here also in Nigeria. The answer may come tomorrow.

This and several other quotes from that novel could well have come from the page of an irreverent Nigerian newspaper columnist: “I’ve known men with good sense otherwise that would swear on the Bible that if (Anderson) stole a dollar he gave ten back in hell to the corporation…” At the man’s death, his son excuses everything he did; he says that his dad was merely “a man like you and me.” Then, he concludes that: “Every vicious thing he did, every law he broke, every man he bought and cheated and ruined, all that power he used for his own ends, the barnyard of corruption he made out of this state – just like it says on there, he was always a man. He did the things men do.”

Why should the next election be about Tinubu and Atiku again? When is rape enough? For daring to ask those questions, I will be asked to shut up and will be reminded that Atiku and Tinubu are doing with our democracy “things men do.” Their men think they are our husbands, and so, whatever they do with us, we are stuck with them just as Wicker’s world is to Durham Anderson. We wait to see. But, perhaps, more immediate is that in the new year, we need lots of popcorn in our theatre. There will be drama – comedy, tragedy, and a combination of both; a salad bowl of claps and raps.

‘An enemy of the people’

By Lasisi Olagunju

The water is poisoned! The whole of the water system is tainted and absolutely unusable for its purpose,” Thomas Stockmann, medical doctor, accomplished scientist, informs the people around him. He is employed to look after the health of the people and the public baths, the mainstay of his town’s economy. It is in the course of that job that he makes a scientific discovery that the baths are dangerously polluted, and that they spread typhoid. And he says so.

Dr. Thomas Stockmann is the protagonist in Henrik Ibsen’s 1882 play, ‘An Enemy of the People’. We were taught long ago that literature is a reflection of life. We were also taught that literature is the lamp that lights the way of life, past to present – and back to the past. We were taught that drama as a mirror shows us what life truly is. Life itself is a drama, a stage on which we all fret and strut until the light goes out on us. Ibsen’s Thomas Stockmann, public enemy number one, is used here in my celebration of the near end of a particularly dramatic year, our love for false gods and our stoning of the wrong Satan.

I have skimmed through Gabriel Fallon’s ‘Prophecy in the Theatre’ (1956), his quote on drama as a member of the human life – human thought and morality. I have scanned J.C. Kamerbeek’s ‘Prophecy and Tragedy’ (1965), his discussions on dramatic structure and tragic meaning. There is a sense in which the dramatic can be prophetic.

Back to ‘An Enemy of the People’. The drama is in the plot. The setting is a coastal town in southern Norway. Authorities of the town get a hint of Dr Stockmann’s findings on their polluted water. Alarmed and agitated, they meet with him for negotiations. They ask their medical doctor to keep quiet, to shut up. The public must not hear what he is saying. It will create a panic in the town. It will hurt the town and its economy; tourists will stop coming, investors will lose money.

But this doctor is a loud-mouthed stubborn dude. He insists on speaking ‘the truth’. He thinks he has a moral obligation to protect the community from avoidable diseases, from even death.

On more than one occasion, Doctor tells the people that previous unexplained deaths are due to the poisoned water: “Last year, there were people who died from a disease that spread through the town, and I am certain that the cause of it was the poisoned water. I told you then, and I tell you now—this water will kill us all.” His decision to talk, he is certain, is the right course of action. “It is my duty to lay bare the facts in the matter. Every conscientious man must support me in this!”

But the system supports only the “moderate.” Dr Stockmann’s own brother, Peter Stockmann, is the mayor of the town. And it is this brother that openly leads the opposition against this doctor, against his discovery of the pollution and against his audacity to tell.

When the state is on your case, it doesn’t rain; it pours. The press soon shuts out our doctor. His editor friends renege on their promise to publish his findings. They claim they can’t offend their funders. The stubborn medical doctor turns to himself. He resolves to speak directly to the people “in a way that they shall understand” and “drive all the wolves out of the country.” There is a town hall meeting where Stockmann proposes to officially announce his findings: “I am telling you the truth! The entire water system is tainted. People are going to die from this. We must close the baths and have them disinfected. We must stop this typhoid epidemic before it spreads further.”

His brother, the Mayor, hijacks the town hall meeting from him. The Mayor addresses the people. He tells them that his brother’s proposal is injurious to everyone in the town. The repairs he proposes will cost ratepayers “an unnecessary expenditure of some thousand pounds.” From the crowd comes a voice suggesting that the doctor be officially declared a public enemy.

Dr Stockmann watches as the townspeople he is fighting for respond with shouts:

“Yes! Yes! He’s an enemy of the people!”

“He hates his country! He hates his own people!”

“We can’t have someone like him in our town!”

Then a motion follows from someone our medical doctor trusts as his key supporter:

“Dr. Stockmann has shown himself to be an enemy of the people. Therefore, I propose that this gathering officially declares him an enemy of the people.” The vote is by ballot; everyone votes. Dr Stockmann gets one vote – the lone vote comes from a drunk attendee, the village drunkard.

Our man is defeated, but the crowd is not satisfied with what they have done to their doctor.

“Let us go and break his windows! Enemy of the people!” The whole crowd yells.

The consequences are grave. He is dismissed from his job. His daughter loses her teaching job; his landlord ejects him; his little boys suffer bullying in school and are told to excuse classes until further notice. Everyone who should help him avoids him. They say they dare not annoy “the majority” and their “public opinion.”

The play ends without a reprieve for “the enemy of the people.” But the man insists that he is the strongest man and that “the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone.” I think he is naive. That is not what the world is. The one who stands alone stays alone and lonely and without power. Power resides where people stand. The people stand where power is. That explains, perhaps, why Donald Trump is Time Magazine’s ‘Person of the Year’.

We started 2024 eleven and a half months ago bitterly divided over what was truly evil and what was godly. We are ending the year divided still over who is angel and who is Satan. In the next two weeks, it is almost certain that we will roll over into the new year the raging Dele Farotimi vs Afe Babalola war of ‘justice’. There is also the tug of war over whether the tax reform bills potentially threaten or benefit the poor. In those two cases, we will be made to state who our “enemy” is. Unfolding also is the Kemi Badenoch/Yoruba vs Kashim Shettima/ Northern Nigeria debate. In 2025, Ibsen’s ‘An Enemy of The People’ will be staged across the entirety of our court and political systems. May God keep us alive – and well.

It Happed To Me: How the police arrested my 15-year-old who was making food deliveries and branded him an armed robber

Diary of a Female Engineer

I used to run a kitchen in Yesufu Abiodun, Oniru, where I supplied food to banks and offices in Victoria Island, Lagos. My 15-year-old son often helped with deliveries, as he had just completed his WAEC exams in 2018. On one particular day, we had a delivery close to our house. Since it was nearby, he went without the driver, carrying the food and our POS machine.

Tragically, the Nigerian police abducted him, confiscated his phone, and took him to the anti-cultism unit in Gbagada. We searched everywhere in Victoria Island, unaware that he had been taken so far away. Eventually, they allowed him to call me, and his terrified voice broke me: “Mummy, are you on your way? I’m so scared.”

My husband and I, along with our lawyer, rushed to the station. At the gate, they took our phones, and then I saw my son—half-naked and sitting on the ground with over 100 others outside the station. I collapsed in tears. My husband, who is British, demanded to see the DPO and asked him directly: “What offense are you charging my son with?” The boy hadn’t been allowed to explain himself, yet the food and POS machine were right there at the station. The DPO’s response? “Because he dyed his hair.” That was it. Nothing more.

In the end, we were forced to pay for his release. This incident was a turning point for my husband, who decided that we couldn’t continue living in Nigeria.

What made this even more painful was the nature of our family. My children were homeschooled, had no social circles outside the family, and never went anywhere without us. They were raised in a closely-knit environment. At the time of this ordeal, I was seven months pregnant, and the trauma of the experience caused me to go into premature labor, resulting in an emergency C-section.

My son’s only “crime” was being a hardworking boy, helping with his parents’ legitimate business—a business that provided employment for Nigerians. For my husband, a white British man, to witness such injustice firsthand was a harrowing experience.

Many of us have bitter, painful stories about the Nigerian system. Yet when we speak out and tell the truth, we are accused of defamation or subjected to cyberbullying. It’s truly heartbreaking.
I personally say that Kemi should be left alone, she is saying exactly what she experienced and if I’m asked anywhere in the world the same question, I will narrate my ordeal, so will every member of my family!

Tunde Bakare’s daughter speaks about how she stopped her parents’ marital break up

Weeks after celebrating his 70th birthday, Pastor Tunde Bakare and his wife, Olayide, fondly called ‘Authentic Mrs. B’, rolled out the drums to celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary on November 30, 2024. In an atmosphere of love, joy and excitement, the couple was surrounded by their children, grandchildren, family, friends and associates at an event to celebrate the anniversary.

Olubunmi Fabode, the first daughter of the Bakares, described her parents’ union as a battleground against generational curses. Fabode, speaking at the event, recalled a moment from her childhood when her father told her that he and her mother were going their separate ways.

She, however, disclosed that her love for her siblings and her desire to keep them together motivated her to pray for her parents’ reconciliation. The daughter revealed that her parents’ marriage was not without its challenges, given their respective backgrounds. “When I was seven years old, my father came to the room and told me ‘Your mother and I are going our separate ways. I am telling you this so you can decide who you want to live with’,” she said.

“I did not care so much about my mum and dad not living together, but I thought if they were separated, my siblings may choose either of our parents. “And I knew that could not work because I absolutely love my siblings. They are the joy of my life. I knew that something had to happen to interrupt that plan was about to hatch. “My father grew up in a household of 12 wives and 22 children.

His father died when he was three. My mother was born in Leicester. “She was raised by a British foster parent, then her grandmother, and was eventually raised by her father and stepmother. “They each came from brokenness, dysfunction and upheaval. Somehow, they found each other, and they decided to try with nothing, but their faith in God. “And the Bible as a guide to create something new that they had not experienced.” She noted that her parents’ marriage was a battleground against generational curses, where they confronted and overcame the darkness of their past. Fabode praised her parents for creating an atmosphere of love and for being role models.

“Their marriage was not just a union, it was a battleground. A place where generational curses were confronted and wrestled to the ground,” she said. “A dear aunty once told me something that stayed with me. She said the first generation of any marriage that emerges from a broken home always faces an extraordinary battle because the enemy is working to perpetrate darkness from one more generation. “Both of them stood in the gap and said this far and no further.

It is because of this testament that we are celebrating here today. Two people decided they could do something new under God. He was a casual Christian before he became married, but when he saw generational curses, nobody taught him to pray. “It came from inside. My mother, the woman that she is today: resilient, and nurturing, she learnt in this marriage to become that. She didn’t have a model. My father made sure we never lacked anything. My parents created an atmosphere of love.” Bakare married Olayide in 1984 and they have five children together.

PUNCH

Predator who raped mum-of-three till she died of heart attack gets life jail for life

A predator who killed a UK health worker by repeatedly raping her until she had a heart attack has been jailed for life.

Mohamed Iidow, 35, was seen on CCTV prowling Southall Park, west London, looking for a vulnerable woman to attack before approaching Natalie Shotter, who had passed out on one of the benches.


The cameras also captured the depraved abuse that followed as Iidow manoeuvred the 37-year-old mum-of-three’s ‘deeply unconscious’ body to attack her ‘again and again’ for more than 15 minutes.


Natalie’s mum, Dr Cas Shotter Weetman, a NHS cardiology practitioner, said: ‘We need to change our thoughts about how we behave.

‘There are people out there who continue to act in a very deviant and horrendous way and think that they can get away with it.’
 
In a moving victim impact statement, she described the horrific ordeal of having to watch her daughter being raped, adding: ‘No mother should ever have to see that.

‘Hearing medical evidence of how you caused my daughter’s death destroyed my family.

‘I felt such anger my daughter had gone to the park on a night out enjoying herself and was assaulted by a predator.

‘No woman should have to fear going to a park and sitting on a bench- it is disgusting.’

Dr Shotter Weetman described how Natalie had been active in a local theatre group and at the age of 12 she starred on the West End in Les Miserables as the understudy to the actor playing Éponine.


She attended theatre school and had a ‘natural flair’ for singing, acting and comedy and later attended the BRIT School in Croydon.


‘[Natalie] had opportunities to work in theatre and television and loved to sing and would do so everywhere,’ her mother said.

‘Nat worked part time in a restaurant from age of 17 then had two sons who she loved so so much.

‘She worked as a volunteer for the British Heart Foundation and worked for the local Alzheimer’s society in their local forget-me-not memory cafe.

‘She was compassionate and had a good heart.

‘In her last job she worked in clinical administration in a local hospital. She was brilliant at her job and loved by those who worked with her.’ 

On Friday, Judge Richard Marks KC sentenced Iidow to life with a minimum term of 10 years and eight months.

He told Iidow that taking advantage of ‘exceptionally talented’ Ms Shotter when she was vulnerable and unconscious was ‘wicked and utterly reckless’.


During the trial, prosecutor Alison Morgan KC said Ms Shotter had died of a heart attack caused by Iidow raping her ‘again and again’.

Ms Shotter was found dead by a passer-by in the park in the early morning of July 17, 2021. 

Swabs taken from her mouth area matched DNA samples taken from Iidow. He was arrested at his home on August 4, 2021, and claimed in his police interview the sexual activity was consensual.

Dele Farotimi: A martyr for truth and justice, By Rev. Fr. John Odey

To begin with, in his book, Julius Caesar, while dismissing his wife’s fear for his death, the famed English writer, William Shakespeare (1564-1616), made Julius Caesar, the hero of the book, to declare: “Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.” That was many years ago. And that happened in a very distant part of the world.

Here in this tormented country of ours called Nigeria, sometimes when the Nigeria-Biafra war was raging with all of its ugliness and bestiality, it got to a stage where our own man of literature, the Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, wrote a book in which he told the world about his frustrations in the face of heart-rending man’s inhumanity to man. He called that book, The Man Died: Prison Notes of Wole Soyinka. In the book he declared: “The man dies in the face of all who keep silent in the face of tyranny.”

These two instances suffice for an illustration of what I want to say about the legal battle currently raging between Goliath Afe Babalola and David Dele Farotimi in the Nigerian legal terrain. In the words of William Shakespeare, Dele Farotimi is a valiant man. He will not be moved. He will not be intimidated. He will not die until his appointed time. The whole world saw him in handcuffs some days back when he appeared in court to face the charges of defamation. The masters who ordered that he should be put in handcuffs can charge him of any fanciful offence they feel can slake their taste for a pound of flesh from him. But the man in Dele Farotimi will never die because is he a terror to tyranny.

The rest of us know that he was chained like a criminal, which he is not, because he refused to keep silent in the face of judicial tyranny. He is being tormented by the powers that be in Nigeria because he is a drum major for truth and justice. He is being made to look like a criminal because he has opened the ears and eyes of ordinary Nigerians to hear and see how naked the kings who have been dancing in the public are. The world is now agog with the odious cankerworm beneath the judicial wig in Nigeria.

Is there somebody who can tell us of any person who stood solidly against injustice that was not at one time or the other chained like a criminal? Being chained like criminals and thrown into jail is often the price that good people have to pay to save their nations and their people. Those who are not very lucky among them pay that price with the lives. Among many others, Dele Giwa and Ken Saro-Wiwa belong to this group. But today, their legacies flourish.

Now, let the truth be told. The handcuffs lifted Farotimi far above the level of those who chained him. He is henceforth as tall as Nelson Mandela in the eyes of 250 million Nigerians. Secondly, the handcuffs assured Nigerians who believe and clamour for justice that Chief Gani Fawehinmi lives on in the person of Dele Farotimi to speak for us, to get battered for us, to go to jail for us, and in the process to keep our hope alive. The handcuffs assured Nigerians that there is still a man who has the courage to call criminality by its ugly name and be ready to face the consequence for our common good.

Dele Farotimi in handcuffs! What a great honour, a crown for the martyr for truth and justice! Believe it or not, in spite of the sufferings involved, I envy Dele Farotimi and not his tormentors. He has proved that he is a man for others, a patriotic Nigerian, a justice crusader and a liberator. Like the biblical Mary, Dele Farotimi has chosen the better part for the sake of Nigerians who are persistently being tormented by those who should protect them from the arrant wickedness and the dehumanizing insensitivity of the criminals who pass for our leaders.

“It is not the duty of the oppressor to free the oppressed. It is the duty of the oppressed to break his chains.” Does the reader perceive any contradiction in this stirring statement made by Farotimi who is currently wearing the chain made for the oppressed? There is no contradiction whatsoever. It is the way it has to be. The masses of the oppressed people known as the hoi-polloi, the wretched of the earth, cannot break their chains. A person like Dele Farotimi is in the position to break the chains for them because he knows what they know and does not lack what they have.

Nobody expects the jobless masses, the homeless masses, the poor okada and keke riders, the silent majority, the scum of the society, the rabble, the have-nots, the under-privileged, the depressed and voiceless class, the street urchins, the hungry people and beggars, who are constantly made to squeak and kowtow in the presence of the police like frightened dogs to break the chain. In the words of Prof. Chinua Achebe, when Farotimi discovered that what has been happening in the judiciary is “too dangerous for silence” he raised an alarm. That alarm reverberating in every nook and cranny of the world today. There is nothing that those who chained him can do about the truth he has spoken. What is written has been written. There is no weapon in the wide world with which to chain the truth he has spoken.

In every age, in every clime, in every country, there must be people who are honest, upright and courageous enough to tell leaders who think they are gods that they are ordinary mortals like everybody else. In the Holy Bible, when some Pharisees advised Jesus to find a place to hide because Herod was determined to kill him, instead of running away, he had the guts to call Herod a fox, after which he assured Herod that he was prepared to surrender to death in order to accomplish his earthly mission (Luke 13:31-33).

When the same Jesus confronted the Pharisees on account of their hypocrisy and outright neglect of justice and love of God, a lawyer there, who felt that his expert knowledge of the law placed him above all rebuke even when he was clearly in the wrong, interjected: “Master, when you speak like this you insult us too.” In reply, Jesus gave it to him directly: “Alas for you lawyers also because you load on men burdens that are unendurable, burdens that you yourselves do not move a finger to lift…Alas for you lawyers who have taken away the key of knowledge! You have not gone in yourselves, and have prevented others going in who wanted to.” (Luke 11:42-52).

You remember that Jesus was eventually killed for being the truth and for standing for truth and for justice. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” (John 14:7). “I was born for this, I came into the world for this: to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of the truth listen to my voice.” (John 18:37). They killed him without knowing that his death was where his definitive power is. Nobody can kill the truth.

So far, and until it is proved that what he wrote in his book, Nigeria And Its Criminal Justice System, is false, what Nigerians who are not versed in the detailed knowledge of the law know as Dele Farotimi’s crime is that he has told the world that the people who are in charge of the justice system in Nigeria are primarily responsible for the total collapse of justice in the country. Anybody who did not know that prior to the 2023 elections was properly educated during and after the elections. The collusion of evil people in politics with evil people in the justice system has reached the stage where one Dele Farotimi is not enough to tackle the rot.

The man, Dele Farotimi, I know is the one I see in the social media platforms and on the Arise Television. His disposition I know is the one I make up in my mind by listening to him talk about Nigeria and Nigerians. I never met him in person. But I pray that I will have the good opportunity of meeting him in person someday. If my conjectured assessment of his disposition is right, I wish to liken him to Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), an American writer and freedom fighter.

In 1842, when Thoreau refused to pay his Massachusetts poll tax on the grounds that money raised by the tax was used in supporting slavery, he was arrested and jailed for that illegal action. In his famous article, Essay on Civil Disobedience, where he explained what happened and how he felt, he wrote: “Nothing is so much to be feared as fear…The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it…Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.”

He then described how glad he was to suffer for his conviction that it is against the law of God and law of man to enslave fellow human beings. While in the prison he felt that he had more freedom than those who put him there. He wrote: “I did not for a moment feel confined and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax.” If anyone wonders what would make any normal human being to feel that he is free when he is caged behind bars as a prisoner of conscience, here is Thoreau’s reason: “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

Dele Farotimi is a just man. Hence he deserved being in prison handcuffed like a criminal. Remember he calls Nigeria an evil forest, which is what evil men in politics have turned our dear country to be. Below are a few of his statements on fear that made me to liken him to Henry David Thoreau. He says:

  1. It is alright to have fears, what is wrong is to receive the fears in one’s spirit, and to then allow these fears to dictate your actions and inactions. When fears stand in the way of your purpose, you must find the grace to discount such fears, except reason advises otherwise.
  2. Fear narrows perspectives and thereby limits your capacity to see your options clearly, enforcing tunnel vision on the afflicted; flight or fight. Look again; those are only two of the several options available to the unafraid. Get rid of you fears, your fears, fear you.”
  3. Tyrants do not scare me, and I am completely unfazed by their kept dogs, be those in uniform or out. Faced by those shorn of fears, they are naught but scarecrows. Men of straw in need of darkness to be men!

Once more, the people who put him in handcuffs can charge him of any offence. But the rest of us know that he was chained like a criminal because he refused to keep silent in the face judicial tyranny. It is unfortunate for his enemies, who are the enemies of ordinary Nigerians that they calculated wrongly by thinking that he would succumb to intimidation. One book written by a simple but an intelligent and upright man has exposed and rattled those who are destroying Nigeria in the name of law. David has once again dealt with Goliath.

If they like, let them keep Dele Farotimi in the prison until he meets his God. Nelson Mandela remained 27 years plus in the prison before they released him. When he came out, the former President of America, Bill Clinton, said about him: “Every time Nelson Mandela works into a room we all feel a little bigger, we all want to stand up, we all want to cheer, because we would like to be him on our best day.” It will be difficult if not impossible for his enemies to ever attain the height to which they have elevated Dele Farotimi.

In conclusion, I am reminded of what an American journalist, Louis Fischer, said about Mahatma Gandhi in his book, Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World. According to him, Gandhi succeeded in his nonviolent war against the British Government because of three main factors. The first is that Gandhi neither cared for sensual pleasures, for comfort, for praise nor for promotion. The second is Gandhi’s indefatigable determination to do what he believed to be right. The third factor is that in spite of the fact that Gandhi was fragile and timid by nature the zeal for a cause dissolved his timidity and loosened his tongue. Consequently, he described Gandhi as a dangerous and uncomfortable person to deal with by any enemy because his body which could always be conquered gave his enemies little purchase over his soul. I just believe that Dele Farotimi is equal to the task. May the God of justice see him through!

Lawyer narrates how she was subjected to a two-year witch hunt for calling the judiciary an old boys’ club

By Jenny Johnston

Old habits die hard. The feminist barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman – a woman so proud to have once been called a Feminazi that she had a coffee mug made with the word emblazoned on it – is telling me how she surprised herself by breaking down and crying during a disciplinary tribunal hearing this week – one that effectively put her in the dock and threatened to end her career.

Although she can’t help but quibble with the language that was used. ‘The papers reported that I ‘wept’,’ she notes. ‘Would anyone say that a man wept?’

Possibly not, but the facts are that she did cry, which is startling given the thick skin she is supposed to have.

‘I’m human,’ she says. ‘The whole process felt overwhelming. The language in the tribunal process is similar to that used in a criminal court. I was the ‘defendant’. If the decision went against me, I would be ‘sentenced’. I am familiar with courtrooms, but I have never been in a situation where I felt on trial, and my steely mask slipped.

‘I started to cry when the clerk read out the charge sheet. It went on for pages. I was accused of breaching this code and breaking that rule, lack of integrity, and recklessly misleading the public. It all sounded so terrible.

‘I sat there thinking ‘I am not this person’. I will say it gave me great insight into just how intimidating and terrifying this process must be for my clients.’

For a barrister to be hauled before a Bar Standards tribunal is a huge thing. ‘Life-changing. Career-ending,’ she agrees. What on earth had she done? What heinous ‘crime’ had she committed? As she says herself, ‘the sanctions I was facing would have been the same had I committed sexual assault’.

Incredibly, the case against Dr Proudman – which hung over her for two and a half years – was brought after a series of online posts in 2022 in which she criticised a judge for his handling of a domestic abuse case.


Had she been found guilty of the accusations, she would have lost her licence to practise for a year and her reputation would have been in tatters


A prolific tweeter, she made public her views about a ‘boys’ club’ attitude – a reference to the fact that the judge involved was a member of the all-male Garrick Club.

And, in her words, the old boys’ club ‘came down hard to deal with me. They moved to silence the woman who spoke out.’

Had she been found guilty of the accusations, she would have lost her licence to practise for a year and her reputation would have been in tatters. She would have also faced a fine of up to £50,000, and been obliged to pay the other side’s costs.

‘Just a few days before the case started they sent me a cost schedule of almost £40,000,’ she reveals, admitting she faced the tribunal panel knowing that she simply could not afford to lose.

‘Most people do not have that sort of money, and without being able to work… How? People go bankrupt over such things. I do not come from a background where it is normal for people to go into a career in the law. I was the second member of my family to go to university.

‘I worked in the Co-op in my small town from 16 until 21. In my darkest hours, when I was lying awake worrying about this tribunal, I worried about ending up back there. There is nothing wrong with working in a supermarket, but I have spent years establishing my career.’

It all began in 2022 after a string of comments she made about Sir Jonathan Cohen’s judgment in a case that she lost. ‘I lost the case. I do not accept the judge’s reasoning,’ she wrote on X. ‘This judgment has echoes of the ‘boys’ club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions’.

Dr Proudman, now one of the most prominent women’s rights lawyers in the country, has always been a divisive figure who has made enemies (of both sexes, she agrees) within the legal profession. But this move against her was extraordinary.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) alleged Dr Proudman had ‘failed to act with integrity’ and that the posts amounted to professional misconduct. She was also accused of ‘inaccurately reflecting the findings of the judge’, which she vehemently denied.

More breathtaking still was the ‘verdict’, which came on Thursday at the disciplinary panel hearing in Gray’s Inn Square, London.

The case was thrown out, with the panel ruling she had no case to answer, had not breached any code of conduct, and was within her right to express her opinion.

Judge Nicholas Ainley, chairman of the panel, said they found Dr Proudman’s posts did not constitute professional misconduct.

‘We do not consider she has lost the Article 10 protection [which protects freedom of expression] by reason as to what she wrote,’ he told the tribunal. ‘They would not have been pleasant for any judge to read. These remarks may be thought to be hurtful, but they are not gravely damaging to the judiciary.’

To translate: the panel found the complaints against Dr Proudman to be poppycock.

‘I just felt numb when the decision came in,’ she says. ‘It had been this huge thing in my life for two and a half years. I hadn’t been able to sleep, eat properly.

‘I just turned to my partner and gave him a hug, and thanked him for putting up with me, because frankly it has been hellish.’

Dr Proudman speaks to me the day after the decision. She has a slightly sore head because the Champagne was flowing the night before. But her relief is palpable.

‘I can have my life back now,’ she says. The stress had descended immediately after she got wind that the BSB was ‘after’ her. She says she got the heads up from a mentor. ‘I couldn’t actually believe it at first, but he said ‘They want to make an example of you. You are going to be a guinea pig’.

‘What was bizarre was that, on that very same day, I got an email from a lovely woman who contacted me to say she’d had a tattoo done on her arm of the scales of justice, with my name underneath… My whole life was hanging in the balance and there was this woman with my name on her arm.’

Now, she is looking forward to getting on with her job. And taking her own legal action, presumably?

‘I am considering my options,’ she says carefully. ‘But yes, I will be pursuing my costs. This whole thing has been a farce, an attempt to silence me. They wanted to say ‘Shut up’. They wanted to stop me even using the term ‘old boys’ club’. I won’t, because it still exists. Of course it does.’

And to her detractors who say she brought this on herself by being just too outspoken?

‘That smacks of ‘she deserves it’ or ‘she was asking for it’, which is the sort of thing we see so often in rape trials,’ she says.

Now free to let rip about the entire ‘witch hunt’, Dr Proudman seizes the opportunity.

‘The case against me should never have been brought. The hell they put me through, and all because I expressed a perfectly valid opinion,’ she says.

‘At the same time, the BSB have not taken action against other, male, barristers who have critcised judges, calling them stupid. Nor have they stepped in to support me or impose sanctions on those fellow barristers who have attacked me online.

‘I have been called a ‘c***’ and ‘mentally ill’. And yet the full forces were marshalled against me when I dared to mention a boys’ club? It’s a clear case of sexism and double standards.’

She argues the BSB is ‘unfit for purpose’, and has offered to help it mend its ways, as long as a few heads roll. ‘To do my job I need to be part of the Establishment. I need to work within it,’ she says, though the irony of remaining in a legal system she believes to be sexist is not lost on her.

Nor is the fact that in the time it took for this case to be heard, it has been all-change at the Garrick Club, which in May voted to allow women to join for the first time in its 193-year existence.

In July, actresses Dame Judi Dench and Dame Sian Phillips became the first women members, their positions bestowed on them as ‘honorary’ members.

General membership is still by invitation, but Dr Proudman has made it clear she would be happy to join her learned colleagues at the bar (the one serving drinks).

Pushing the boundaries as ever, she cheekily posted a picture of herself on social media wearing a Garrick Club tie, saying she was ready when they were. She may yet have some wait.

This article I was subjected to a two-year witch hunt – and faced ruin – for daring to call the judiciary an old boys’ club: Barrister who was proud to be called a ‘Feminazi’ tells of her torment after winning dramatic legal case was originally published by the MailOnline on Sunday, 15th December 2024.

TIPS