Seyi Sowemimo, SAN, and son of a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, George Sodeinde Sowemimo (1983–1985) has countered some of the recent posts made by Professor Chidi Odinkalu.
In an 18 February 2025 letter addressed to the law Professor and to the Editor of Law Times, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria said the posts “contains some misinformation, which requires correction so that they do not become accepted for all times as the true versions of the events to which they relate”
The full text of his letter reads:
I have in recent times come across two posts or write-ups put up by Professor Odinkalu, which contain some misinformation, which requires correction so that they do not become accepted for all times as the true versions of the events to which they relate.
The first has to do with the events of 31st December 1983 which heralded in the Buhari/Idiagbon Administration. From his account, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice George Sodeinde Sowemimo GCON (who happens to be my late father) was out of the country at the material time. The Military in his absence then proposed to swear in Justice Aniagolu in his place as Chief Justice but the learned Justice declined the offer.
I have some personal knowledge of the events of that day and it has therefore become necessary to correct some aspects of your narrative. Firstly, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Sowemimo was certainly in the Country at that time. What actually happened was that on the night of the coup, the military officers sent the then Secretary to Federal Government, Mr. Gray Longe to CJ’s official residence to invite my father to their gathering at Bonny Camp. In panic, my late mother sent word to me to alert me of the development but happily by the time I got to the house, my father had returned from Bonny Camp.
What happened at Bonny Camp was that the Military Officers requested that my father swear him General Muhammadu Buhari, as the new Head of State and possibly thereafter accompany him to the Television Station where he was to make his maiden Broadcast. The Chief Justice refused and impressed on them the fact that they had by their actions suspended the Constitution and that he could not therefore as the Chief Justice legitimately swear General Buhari as the Head of State. The military officers were persuaded by this explanation and General Buhari thereafter proceeded with the takeover without formality of a swearing-in.
When my father got to Bonny Camp that night, he met some Judges at the venue but their presence has never been fully explained. I, however, believe that if such offer was ever made to Justice Aniagolu it would be easy for me to appreciate his disinclination towards the offer as Judges of their ilk were not consumed by ambition and Justice Aniagolu would well have recognized that there were other Justices of the Supreme Court who were senior to him and that an acceptance of such an offer would have created a very awkward situation for the judiciary, especially at the level of the Supreme Court. Anyone familiar with the level of camaraderie which existed amongst the Justices of that Court at the material time will readily appreciate why such an offer would have been spurned.
The second post concerns the compulsory retirement of Hon Justice Yaya Jinadu from the High Court Bench. An aspect of the narrative which is incorrect concerns the claim that Hon. Justice Adefarasin, the then Chief Judge of Lagos State, unilaterally withdrew the Garba case file from Justice Jinadu. The version that I am familiar with is that it was Justice Jinadu who requested that the case file be reassigned to another judge. The advisory Judicial Council made up of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and several other Justices actually called for the case file and observed for themselves the minutes by Justice Jinadu requesting that the case file be assigned to another judge. It is therefore not correct or fair to give the impression that the case file was unceremoniously withdrawn from him by Justice Adefarasin, the Chief Judge. What infuriated members of the Supreme Military Council was the fact that the Judge had made those false claims against the Chief Judge. This was the background to the compulsory retirement of Justice Yaya Jinadu. Undoubtedly, the compulsory retirement of Justice, Yaya Jinadu was an unfortunate development and prematurely brought to an end what was otherwise a laudable judicial career.
Finally, you described as infamous the judgment of Justice Sowemimo which convicted the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. You referred to the judgment as “infamous”. This characterisation clearly ignores the fact that the judgment was in fact upheld and confirmed unanimously by a panel of five justices of the Supreme Court, comprising Sir Adetokunbo Ademola, Sir Lionel Brett, Justice JIC Taylor, Sir Vahe Bairamian and Sir Louis Mbanefo. The appeal is reported as MICHAEL ADEDAPO OMISADE & ORS vs THE QUEEN (1964) 1 All NLR Pg 23. The only significant deviation was the observation by Justice Mbanefo to the effect that Onabamiro was a tainted witness, but His Lordship agreed with the ultimate conclusion of the other Justices. At page 293 of the judgment, His Lordship Mbanefo Ag JSC observed as follows:
“With regard to the 27th accused, I agree that the conviction should be
sustained as I am in full agreement with the conclusions reached on
overt act 4 on the first count which by itself is enough to sustain the
conviction on that count.”
The judgment in the Omisade case was in fact preceded by the judgment handed down in the treasonable felony trial of Chief Anthony Enahoro, who was convicted by Hon. Justice S.O Lambo on the very same set of facts; as Chief Enahoro was a central figure in the transaction comprising the offence of treasonable felony. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. This was about two weeks before the judgment in the Awolowo case. Chief Anthony Enahoro appealed his conviction and his appeal was decided by another set of five Supreme Court Justices, who affirmed the conviction of Chief Enahoro for treasonable felony but reduced the sentence from 15 years to 7 years. The Panel of the Supreme Court that heard the appeal was comprised of Sir Adetokunbo Ademola, Sir Lionel Brett, Sir Vahe Robert Bairamian, George Baptist Ayodola Coker and Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe. The leading judgment was delivered by Justice Idigbe, who in the course of the Judgment observed as follows:
“We think, however, that in the circumstances of this case/ the sentence
imposed on the appellant obviously a “lieutenant” should not exceed
that imposed on the ‘leader/ (Chief Awolowo) and accordingly the
sentence imposed on the appellant will be reduced. The appeal against
sentence therefore succeeds, and we direct that the sentence of twelve
years lHL on the 1st count on the information be and is hereby reduced
to seven years lHL”
It is unfair in the circumstances to describe the judgment of the trial Court as infamous, considering the fact that 10 reputable Justices of the highest Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons. Write-ups on such sensitive issues like the treasonable felony case should strive to better inform the public rather than perpetuate popular misconceptions.
Seyi Sowemimo, SAN
