Barroom Battles and the Burden of Example: Rethinking civility and responsibility in public discourse(A Reflection on the Unfortunate Exchange Between Mike Ozekhome and Adebayo Ojo)

By Sylvester Udemezue

1. The Decline of Decorum in the Legal Profession: The Nigerian legal profession has long stood as a bastion of intellectual rigour, civil discourse, and constitutionalism. In a democratic society where lawyers are not only officers of the court but custodians of reason, civility, and the rule of law, it is both unfortunate and instructive to witness public exchanges between learned silks devolve into personal invectives. The recent exchange between Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN and Mutalubi Adebayo Ojo, SAN, arising from the former’s remarks during an interview on Channels TV and the latter’s rejoinder on Facebook, represents a regrettable low in legal discourse, because they starkly threaten to erode the standards of civility, maturity, and responsibility that membership of the Bar demands. This article is not an attempt to adjudicate the correctness of either party’s opinion about governance or national issues. Rather, it is a principled intervention meant to reinforce the constitutional values of free speech, tolerance, civility, and constructive engagement, especially among legal practitioners, in advancing democratic discourse, strengthening public confidence in the legal profession, and setting a moral compass for the larger society. In the spirit of democratic ethos and legal professionalism, personal attacks are wholly unnecessary and incompatible with the noble calling of the Bar.
2. Freedom of Expression Is Both A Right and Responsibility: In the affected Channels TV interview, Prof Mike Ozekhome was only exercising a right that is as old as constitutional democracy itself: the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed and protected by Section 39(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which provides that “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” This right, while not absolute, is fundamental to democratic governance. In ARTHUR NWANKWO v. THE STATE (1985) 6 NCLR 228, the Court of Appeal held that public figures, especially political office holders, are subject to public scrutiny and criticisms. The Court declared that criticism of government is permissible, even harshly worded criticism, so long as it does not cross the boundaries of incitement to violence or public disorder. Hence, when a lawyer like Mike Ozekhome critiques the government, regardless of his tone or opinion, he is only exercising a right that is protected by both domestic and international legal frameworks. Similarly, Mr. Ojo was entitled to react to any matter in the public domain. However, while freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, it does not include the freedom to abuse, slander, or vilify others. Voltaire once remarked, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This timeless quote underscores the essence of free speech: it is a right accompanied by responsibility, a duty especially incumbent upon lawyers, who are custodians of the law, stewards of reason, and guardians of democratic health. With due respect, the manner of Mr. Adebayo Ojo’s reaction (resorting to personal invective) crossed a boundary incompatible with the nobility of the legal profession. Responding with vitriol instead of reasoned counter-argument, as Mr. Ojo unfortunately did, is not only unhelpful, but also a betrayal of democratic values and the ideals of civil discourse. Jean-Jacques Rousseau captured this truth succinctly when he said, “Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.” When robust debate is reduced to shouting matches and character assassination, our civic culture is diminished. A pluralistic society demands mutual respect for differences and tolerance of opposing views. Jennifer Chen wisely advised: “Give others the freedom to be themselves; appreciate the differences between their ways and yours, and you’d be wiser and greater.” It is time we moved past the habit of making enemies out of those who merely disagree with us. The hallmark of a mature democracy is not uniformity of opinion but the civil exchange of divergent views, guided by mutual respect and rational engagement.
3. Criticism Is A Duty of Democratic Scrutiny: Criticism in a democracy is not an act of sabotage but a civic obligation. Criticism functions like pain in the human body; a necessary indicator of dysfunction and a prompt for healing. As I argued in my 2019 article on Governor Seyi Makinde’s and Vice President Osinbajo’s pledge to waive immunity, public officers must expect to be “bashed front, back, left, right, and centre.” And such criticisms, whether constructive or even mistaken, must be met with maturity, not malice. Thomas Jefferson’s observation remains relevant: “Were it left to me to choose between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, I would not hesitate to choose the latter.” Unfortunately, when lawyers and public intellectuals respond to critique with insults, we imperil the open dialogue upon which democracy rests.
4. The Fallacy of Ad Hominem: Attacking the Person, Not the Idea: A central flaw in Mr. Adebayo Ojo’s reaction to Prof Mike Ozekhome’s critical comments against the government was his deployment of argumentum ad hominem: attacking the messenger rather than engaging the message. Labelling Chief Ozekhome a “pseudo activist” or one of “warped mind” neither advances the argument nor enriches the discourse. Rather, it constitutes a fallacy that diverts attention from the substance of the argument, discredits the speaker without addressing the issue at hand, and evades responsibility for reasoned counter-engagement. I repeat that lawyers occupy a privileged position in society. As public intellectuals and members of the Bar, their words carry weight. It is therefore troubling when legal practitioners resort to name-calling rather than reasoned analysis. This informal logical fallacy occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the person making it, rather than engaging with the argument itself. Such tactics reflect weakness in reasoning and must be avoided. They are fallacious for several reasons: (a). They are irrelevant. Attacks on personality do not address the truth or falsity of an argument. A superior approach would be to present a better argument, backed by credible evidence; (b). They serve as diversion. By shifting attention from ideas to individuals, they appeal to emotion and derail substantive discussion; (c). They rely on a flawed premise: the mistaken belief that discrediting the source of an argument discredits the argument itself. As Robert G. Ingersoll aptly warned, “Arguments cannot be answered by personal abuse; there is no logic in slander, because falsehood, in the long run, defeats itself.” To challenge an idea, one must offer a better idea, not venom. Mr. Ojo could have responded to Chief Ozekhome’s critique with facts, logic, or legal authority. Instead, he attacked the critic. That approach, regrettably, is unworthy of the learned rank of Senior Advocate. The learned rank of SAN is not just an accolade; it is a badge of responsibility. Holders of the rank must set standards, in speech, in writing, in conduct. Personal vendettas and verbal violence erode public trust and denigrate the nobility of the profession. Mutual disagreement is part of intellectual engagement. But, as Don Lemon once said, “We can also disagree without being disagreeable. It doesn’t mean that I don’t like you, or you don’t like me. We just disagree, which is fine.”
5. The Legal Profession’s Higher Calling Demands Civility and Responsibility, Always: The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (2023) is unequivocal: (a) Rule 1: “A lawyer shall maintain a high standard of professional conduct and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner”; (b). Rule 30: Lawyers must treat colleagues with “respect and courtesy;” and (c). Rule 55 cautions against “allusion to personal peculiarities or idiosyncrasies.” When lawyers abandon these codes in the public square, they imperil public trust and collapse the high moral walls that separate the Bar from common polemics. Hon Justice Oputa, formerly of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, now late, once noted: “The judiciary and the legal profession are like Caesar’s wife — they must be above suspicion.” Hon Justice Kayode Eso, also formerly of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, and now late, wisely added: “A disagreement is the salt of legal argument. But it must remain just that– disagreement, not personal warfare.”
6. The SAN Rank: A Badge of Leadership, Not License: The rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) is a recognition of legal excellence and moral leadership. Its holders are expected not merely to win arguments, but to model dignity, tolerance, and intellectual refinement. This is why it is so disheartening when disputes among SANs devolve into “barroom battles.” The public watches. Our students and aspirants to the Bar are watching. The profession is watching.
7. Raising Words, Not Voices Is A Culture of Constructive Engagement: A quote by the poet Rumi captures the ideal: “Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.” Public discourse, especially among lawyers, intellectuals and enlightened people, should focus on substance, not personalities. It should favour persuasion over provocation. Jennifer Chen has the following advice for all: “Give others the freedom to be themselves; appreciate the differences between their ways and yours, and you’d be wiser and greater.” In reflecting on public criticism of former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and Governor Seyi Makinde the governor of Oyo State, Nigeria, I earlier emphasized that true leadership is best tested in one’s response to critique. Instead of lashing out at one’s critics, one ought to prefer respectful engagement to retaliation. The legal profession and its members should never deviate from this path. Disagree with ideas, but never descend to character assassination. Mr. Adebayo Ojo’s response to Prof. Mike Ozekhome’s critical remarks about the government was laced with invectives and personal insults, without any meaningful engagement with the substantive issues raised. Provoked by what he saw as an unwarranted personality attack, Ozekhome retaliated forcefully, perhaps in an attempt to teach Ojo a lesson. The outcome was an unfortunate exchange between two senior advocates, one that cast the legal profession in an unflattering light.
8. The NBA’s Role and the Way Forward: This episode must serve as a moment of reflection and rededication. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the Body of Senior Advocates (BOSAN) and our law faculties must (1) Reaffirm the principles of civil and respectful public discourse; (2). Institutionalize orientation for both junior and senior lawyers on how to engage criticism with maturity; (3). Convene dialogues on the ethical dimensions of public commentary in law and governance. We need to reclaim the legal space as a marketplace of ideas, not a theatre of insults.
9. A President for All: No One Owns Him More: It bears repeating: the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a public officer, not an ethnic chieftain or a tribal totem. No one owns him more than another. His office, like his performance, is subject to the judgment of the entire citizenry. Criticizing him is not treason; it is civic engagement. As leaders of thought and defenders of the rule of law, lawyers must lead the campaign for a Nigeria where no opinion is silenced, and where opposing views are not criminalized. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), Justice Brennan wrote: “Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open… even though it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” As Justice Hugo Black of the U.S. Supreme Court once declared, “The freedom of speech must be protected even for the thought we hate.”
10. Let Us Rebuild the Bridge: We live in a deeply polarized polity. The rule of law, democracy, and national healing require lawyers and intellectuals to lead by example. We must rise above petty squabbles and re-dedicate ourselves to truth, civility, and constitutionalism. Frederick Douglass once warned that “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” The exchange between two otherwise distinguished SANs is a teachable moment. Let us draw the right lessons. Let us elevate our conversations, protect the dignity of dissent, and guard the soul of our democracy; one idea at a time. As Socrates famously reminded us, “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” We are lawyers. Let us be strong minds.
    Long live the legal profession!
    Long live Nigeria!
    Respectfully,
    Sylvester Udemezue (Udems).
    Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM).
    08109024556.
    TheRealityMinister@Gmail.Com.
    (12 June 2025)
11. The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.