By Sylvester Udemezue et al.
Following the outburst by Mr Martins VINCENT Otshe aka, VeryDarkBlackMan or VeryDarkMan) against Femi Falana, SAN, among others in re Bobrisky prison tales, Mr Falana had written to demand apology and retraction, claiming Mr Otshe’s outburst against him was defamatory. In response to Falana’s demand, Deji Adeyanju & Partners writing as Solicitors to Martins VINCENT Otshe, declared that their client (Mr Otshe) had done nothing more than share Mr Bobrisky’s voice note. According to Deji Adeyanju & Partners, their client had done nothing wrong against Falana whom as the Law Firm says, their client holds very high. It was in reaction to the letter by Deji Adeyanju & Partners, that I wrote as follows:
“𝚁𝙴: 𝚁𝙴𝚂𝙿𝙾𝙽𝚂𝙴 𝚃𝙾 𝙵𝙰𝙻𝙰𝙽𝙰 (𝚂𝙰𝙽) 𝙱𝚈 𝙳𝙴𝙹𝙸 𝙰𝙳𝙴𝚈𝙰𝙽𝙹𝚄 & 𝙿𝙰𝚁𝚃𝙽𝙴𝚁𝚂 𝙾𝙽 𝙱𝙴𝙷𝙰𝙻𝙵 𝙾𝙵 𝙼𝚁 𝙼𝙰𝚁𝚃𝙸𝙽𝚂 𝚅𝙸𝙽𝙲𝙴𝙽𝚃 𝙾𝚃𝚂𝙷𝙴 𝙸𝙽 𝚁𝙴 𝙱𝙾𝙱𝚁𝙸𝚂𝙺𝚈’𝚂 𝚅𝙾𝙸𝙲𝙴-𝙽𝙾𝚃𝙴 𝙿𝚁𝙸𝚂𝙾𝙽 𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙴𝚂
𝚆𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚍𝚞𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚌𝚝, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚋𝚢/𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝙳𝚎𝚓𝚒 𝙰𝚍𝚎𝚢𝚊𝚗𝚓𝚞 & 𝙿𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚗𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚒𝚜 𝚌𝚑𝚊𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚊𝚏𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚠𝚜, 𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚞𝚋𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎.
𝙸𝚗 𝚖𝚢 𝚘𝚙𝚒𝚗𝚒𝚘𝚗, 𝙼𝚛 𝙼𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚜 𝚅𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝙾𝚝𝚜𝚑𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚍 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝 𝚙𝚞𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚑 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢’𝚜 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎, 𝙼𝚛 𝙾𝚃𝚂𝙷𝙴 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚙𝚛𝚌𝚎𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚗 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚘𝚠𝚗, 𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚞𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚗𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢’𝚜 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎, 𝚞𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚍𝚎𝚏𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚢 𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚜 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚎𝚖𝚒 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊, 𝚂𝙰𝙽.
𝙰 𝚌𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚏𝚞𝚕 𝚊𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚙𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎 𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚞𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚑𝚎𝚍, 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚢 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚠 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢 𝚍𝚒𝚍 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚍𝚎𝚏𝚊𝚖𝚎 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊. 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢’𝚜 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚍𝚗’𝚝/𝚍𝚘𝚎𝚜𝚗’𝚝 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚢 𝚠𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚐𝚍𝚘𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊, 𝚂𝙰𝙽. 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚜𝚊𝙸’𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚣 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚕𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚕𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚛 (𝚒𝚗 𝚊 𝚙𝚑𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢) 𝚊𝚍𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢 𝚌𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚕𝚢 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚍𝚘𝚗. 𝚃𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚒𝚜𝚗’𝚝 𝚊𝚗𝚢𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚍𝚎𝚏𝚊𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚢 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚋𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚍𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚊 𝚌𝚕𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚊𝚔𝚎 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚍𝚘𝚗, 𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚌𝚒𝚛𝚌𝚞𝚖𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚜 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝, 𝚒𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚊 𝚕𝚊𝚠𝚢𝚎𝚛’𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚏𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚕 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚔. 𝙵𝚞𝚛𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛, 𝚊 𝚕𝚊𝚠𝚢𝚎𝚛 𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚊𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚎𝚛, 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚗 𝚙𝚑𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚘𝚛 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚎𝚝𝚘𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚎, 𝚒𝚜𝚗’𝚝, 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚎, 𝚞𝚗𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚏𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚕 𝚘𝚛 𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚎𝚐𝚊𝚕. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝙿𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚘𝚗 𝚁𝚎𝚐𝚞𝚕𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚠 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚎𝚛’𝚜 𝚕𝚊𝚠𝚢𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚖𝚞𝚗𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚎𝚛, 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚟𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚍 𝚜𝚎𝚝 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚌𝚎𝚍𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚕 𝚛𝚎𝚚𝚞𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚝. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎 𝚋𝚢 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚎𝚜𝚗’𝚝 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚜𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚜𝚎𝚝 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚖𝚎𝚝; 𝚜𝚘, 𝚠𝚎 𝚖𝚞𝚜𝚝 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚞𝚖𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚝 𝚞𝚗𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚢𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚎𝚜 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚛𝚢. 𝙷𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎, 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚞𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚒𝚝’𝚜 𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚜𝚙𝚘𝚔𝚎 𝚊𝚝 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢, 𝚊𝚜 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚋𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎 𝚒𝚝𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚏 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚠 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚍 𝚊𝚗𝚢𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚞𝚗𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚏𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚕 𝚘𝚛 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝙽𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚊𝚗 𝚕𝚊𝚠. 𝙾𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚛𝚢, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚒𝚜 𝚖𝚢 𝚘𝚙𝚒𝚗𝚒𝚘𝚗, 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢’𝚜 𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝𝚏𝚞𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚘𝚛 𝚒𝚗𝚟𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚂𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 174, 𝙲𝙵𝚁𝙽, 1999. 𝙰𝚌𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚕𝚢, 𝚊 𝚕𝚊𝚠𝚢𝚎𝚛 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚒𝚜 𝚜𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗g 𝚋𝚎𝚢𝚘𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚍𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢 𝚝𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚎𝚔 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚍𝚘𝚗, 𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚜𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚑𝚒𝚖𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚏 𝚘𝚛 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚐𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚗 𝚊𝚍𝚟𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚊𝚠 𝚘𝚛 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚊𝚠.
𝙸𝚝’𝚜 𝙼𝚛 𝙼𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊𝚜 𝚅𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝙾𝚝𝚜𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚏𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚍 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚎𝚖𝚒 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚑𝚎 (𝙼𝚛 𝙾𝚝𝚜𝚑𝚎) 𝚒𝚗 𝚏𝚊𝚕𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚔𝚢’𝚜 𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚖𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚜, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚋𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚜 𝚑𝚎 𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚍 𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚎n𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎, 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚊𝚜 𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚊𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚖𝚙𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚜𝚞𝚋𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚝 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚘𝚛 𝚍𝚞𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚌𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚕𝚊𝚠. 𝙸𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜 (𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚒𝚗 𝙼𝚛 𝙱𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚔𝚢’𝚜 𝚟𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚎) 𝚕𝚒𝚎𝚜 𝙼𝚛 𝙾𝚝𝚜𝚑𝚎’𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚒𝚋𝚎𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚏𝚊𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚢 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚔 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊. 𝙷𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝙼𝚛 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚊’𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚘𝚐𝚢.
𝚁𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚏𝚞𝚕𝚕𝚢,
𝚂𝚢𝚕𝚟𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚄𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚣𝚞𝚎.
08109024556.”
However, by way of rejoinder to mine, a respected learned friend who happens to be both a great bar leader and my bosom friend, Mr Paschal Ugwuanyi, wrote thus:
“If a lawyer applies to have a discussion with an inmate of a prison, on approval, the welfare officer stays close to the lawyer and the inmate to monitor the conversation or discussion as it lasts. Do we still assume that this procedure was followed while the alleged conversation between the Learned Silk and Bobrisky on telephone lasted? If it wasn’t followed, what is the implication? I think, we are assuming too much on this issue. I just wish to believe that the respected Learned Silk never put any call to Bobrisky while he was in the prison or that prior to allegedly making the call, he applied and got the permissions of the prison authority to put a call to Bobrisky. In my mind,those are the only available defences to Learned Silk and I rest my case on this issue.”
On his part, learned Ken Ahia, SAN had this to say:
“I agree with you [i.e., with Udems] on this . Secondly, the said Bobrisky could be mentioning Falana’s name for legitimacy of the demand he is making to a friend for support. Falana, did no wrong in advising a client on options available.”
Meanwhile, in reaction to Mr Ugwuanyi’s friendly rejoinder, I asked the following questions:
“𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙬𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪 [Mr Ugwuanyi]:
1️⃣. 𝙃𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙙𝙮 𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙙?
3️⃣. 𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫e𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣/inmate?”
Mr UGWUANYI’S RESPONSE:
“Udems I will answer your question by telling you that on few occasions inmates of prison called me on phone and introduced themselves as inmates of the prison, i promptly ended the call with a promise to visit them at the prison and i visited as promised. But the case at hand is not even about inmates of prison calling a lawyer,rather, it’s about a lawyer allegedly calling inmate of prison. I hope you have not disputed the mandatory procedure of a welfare officer of prison being close to lawyers while conversations between them and any inmates of the prison maybe going on. If you accept that this procedure is a mandatory procedure in every prison or Correctional Centers in the country,what do you say about the breach of the procedure?”
MY FURTHER COMMENTS, IN REACTION TO UGWUANYI’S:
“𝙔𝙤𝙪’𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜, 𝙨𝙞𝙧, with due respect, sir; 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙖𝙬, 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙡𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙄𝘾𝙏 𝙤𝙣 𝙡𝙖𝙬 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚 in Nigeria.
I have questions for you, sir: 𝙍𝙪𝙡𝙚 22 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙍ukes of 𝙋rofessional 𝘾induct for Legal Practitioners in Nigeria, 2023, 𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪 [as a lawyer] 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚. Now, I ask you,
(A). 𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚?
(B). 𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙕𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨, 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨𝘼𝙥𝙥 𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨, 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨, 𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨, 𝙚𝙩𝙘? 𝙊𝙧, put differently, 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙤𝙘𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙕𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨, 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨𝘼𝙥𝙥 𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨, 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨, 𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨, 𝙚𝙩𝙘, 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙥𝙝𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 with your client?
(C). 𝘿𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙍𝙪𝙡𝙚 22 𝙚𝙣𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙙𝙨 — 𝙕𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨, 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨𝘼𝙥𝙥 𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨, 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨, 𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨, 𝙚𝙩𝙘??
(D). If no, then w𝙝𝙮 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙡𝙜𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙍𝙋𝘾?
(E). Meanwhile, 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 habits [of use of ICT) 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙣 𝙡𝙖𝙬 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚?
Dear Mr Ugwuanyi, sir, 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙖 phone 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖n 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣, 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙙𝙪𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩, 𝙮𝙤𝙪’𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙢pl𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙮.
𝙄𝙩 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪 may not have 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙/integrated 𝙄𝘾𝙏 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 law 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚. If this is so, please permit me suggest to you that 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙙𝙤 these 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙪𝙥𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙙 (𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙) 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 , illegal or 𝙪𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡? 𝙄 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙙𝙪𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩, 𝙨𝙞𝙧 .
𝙄𝙣 𝙢𝙮 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙨𝙞𝙧, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙮𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚, 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙪𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨 — 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙞𝙢𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙤𝙨𝙨. 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙮𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙚-𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 (𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙮𝙚𝙧-𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬)! 𝙁𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙞𝙧𝙘𝙪𝙢𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨, 𝙞𝙣 𝙢𝙮 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙈𝙧 𝙁𝙚𝙢𝙞 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨. 𝙈𝙮 𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬, 𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚.
𝙉𝙤𝙬, 𝙈𝙧 𝙐𝙜𝙬𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙞, 𝙨𝙞𝙧, 𝙄 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮
(1). .𝙈𝙧 𝘼𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙤𝙗𝙞 (𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚) 𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙬 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝘽𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙞𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝘿𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙞, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙞 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣 𝙙𝙧𝙪𝙜𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙬 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝘿𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙞, 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙧 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙉𝙞𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙖 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙡.
(2). 𝙈𝙧 𝘼𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙤𝙗𝙞 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝘿𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙞 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙄 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩, 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧.
(3). 𝙄 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙄 𝙡𝙚𝙛𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙣𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. 𝙄 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙩 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤n𝙨, 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡.
(4). 𝙃𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙩𝙤 𝙇𝙖𝙜𝙤𝙨. 𝙃𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙨 𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙, 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙄𝙠𝙚𝙟𝙖. 𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙝𝙞𝙢. 𝙃𝙚 𝙗𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙪𝙥 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚.. 𝙄 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙃𝙞𝙜𝙝 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩, 𝙄𝙠𝙤𝙮𝙞 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙨 𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙙.
(5). 𝙉𝙊𝙏𝙀:
(𝙖). 𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣’𝙩 𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙞 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙠𝙚𝙥𝙩.
(𝙗) . 𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣’𝙩 𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙩 𝙄𝙠𝙚𝙟𝙖, 𝙇𝙖𝙜𝙤𝙨, 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩
𝙌𝙐𝙀𝙎𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎 𝘼𝙍𝙄𝙎𝙄𝙉𝙂
(𝙞). 𝘼𝙢 𝙄 𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩?
(𝙞𝙞). 𝙁𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨, 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙖𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙄 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝘿𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙞 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙞 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙨? 𝘿𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙄𝙠𝙚𝙟𝙖?
𝙎𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙮, 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙝, 𝙄 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙘𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙗𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙙𝙮 𝙪𝙥𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. 𝙄 𝙪𝙨𝙪𝙖lly 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙢𝙮/𝙖 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙮𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙪𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚. 𝙉𝙤𝙬, 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙖𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙄 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙮𝙖𝙧𝙙, 𝙄 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 (𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙪re𝙨) 𝙚𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙞𝙨, 𝙨𝙖𝙮, 𝙞𝙣 𝙆𝙖𝙙𝙪𝙣𝙖, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙆𝙖𝙙𝙪𝙣𝙖? 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩? 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙣𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮-𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙗𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙡𝙖𝙬 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚?
𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣:
(1) 𝙄𝙣 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 (𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚) 𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙣 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙠 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢
(2). 𝙈𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙄 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙜, 𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙈𝙧 𝙁𝙚𝙢𝙞 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙗𝙤𝙗𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠𝙮 𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙣𝙤 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙧𝙮.
(3). 𝙄𝙣 𝙢𝙮 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙, 𝙈𝙧 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙙𝙞𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜, 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙮 𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚. 𝙈𝙧 𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙑𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙊𝙩𝙨𝙝𝙚’𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖ti𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙠, Mr Falana.
(4). 𝙄𝙩’𝙨 𝙢𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝘿𝙚𝙟𝙞 𝘼𝙙𝙚𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙟𝙪 & 𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙖𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙈𝙧 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙨 — 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝘽𝙤𝙗𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠𝙮’𝙨 𝙫𝙤𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙈𝙧 𝙊𝙩𝙨𝙝𝙚’𝙨 𝙪𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙚𝙭𝙪𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙢𝙪𝙙𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩 𝙈𝙧 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖, 𝙎𝘼𝙉. 𝙄 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝘿𝙚𝙟𝙞 𝘼𝙙𝙚𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙟𝙪 & 𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙤𝙪𝙨, 𝙤𝙗𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙖𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚 (𝙩𝙤 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖) 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝, 𝙄 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙢𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙙𝙪𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩, 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚𝙨 — 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙛 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙, 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙚𝙮𝙚𝙨 𝙈𝙧 𝙊𝙩𝙨𝙝𝙚’𝙨 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 said 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 both 𝙧𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙈𝙧 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖, 𝙎𝘼𝙉.
HOW VERYDARKMAN DEFAMED FALANA IN THE VIDEO CLIP:
In the video clip, the VeryDarkMan is heard and seen saying that “Femi Falana spoke to Bobrisky to divert justice”. His words, in part:
“Falz the bad guy spoke to Bobrisky and contacted his father and his father Femi Falana spoke to Bobrisky in order to divert justice…. And the same Falz will come out and say he’s fighting against Nigerian Government, against injustice….”
How are the above words defamatory?
(A). OF FEMI FALANA: VeryDarkMan’s statement represented the learned silk (i) as one who had attempted to divert justice and (ii) as one who is a hypocrite.
(B). FALZ: By necessary, reasonable implication, VeryDarkMan, in the video clip, accused Falz of the following, among others: (1). Falz is a hypocrite; (2). Falz tried to divert justice; and (3). Falz is a homosexual.
Anyone who has watched VeryDarkMan speaking in the video clip would be as shocked as I am, that VeryDarkMan’s Lawyers would write a response-letter to suggest that VeryDarkMan has said nothing defamatory against Femi Falana and Falz. Unless VeryDarkMan believes in, and can prove, the truth of what he has said, it is surprising that VeryDarkMan has up till now not yet apologized. Assuming VeryDarkMan thinks he’s saying the truth, the REALITY is that he can’t rely on the said video clip for any form of support or justification for his vituperative and malignant outburst against Mr Falana. Perhaps he has other evidence outside the video clip. If not, and if he refuses, fails or neglects to apologise, then he is for bigger law-troubles unless Mr Falana decides to let the sleeping dog lie. Mine is not a piece of advice to Mr Falana, to sue or to not sue; I am merely analysing to contribute to putting the issues in proper perspectives.
Please, read Part 1 of this discussion: “The Femi Falana Angle in the Bobrisky Prison-tales Controversy” But Sylvester Udemezue [published 26 September 2024 in LawAndSocietyMagazine)
𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮,
𝙎𝙮𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙐𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙯𝙪𝙚
(𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙮)
08109024556.
𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙮@𝙜𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙡.𝙘𝙤𝙢.
(27/09/2024)
