- * Emmanuel Obot’s 15-year legal battle ends in landmark rule-of-law victory as apex court upholds NBA disciplinary referral
A constitutional battle that began with a disputed Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary election has culminated in one of the most far-reaching judicial pronouncements ever delivered against a former Attorney-General of the Federation, with the Supreme Court affirming orders that effectively bar Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, from holding public office in Nigeria.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on December 10, 2021, in Appeal No. SC.939/2015, the apex court dismissed Aondoakaa’s appeal and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal in favour of Hon. Emmanuel Bassey Obot, bringing to an end a legal contest that lasted nearly fifteen years.
Although the dispute originated from the 2006 PDP primary election for the Uyo Federal Constituency seat in Akwa Ibom State, where Obot challenged his substitution as the party’s candidate, the litigation ultimately evolved into a defining constitutional case on the powers, duties and ethical responsibilities of Nigeria’s chief law officer.
Delivering the lead judgment, Chief Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun agreed with the findings of the lower courts that Aondoakaa, while serving as Attorney-General of the Federation under the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, acted contrary to the rule of law by issuing official letters that sought to frustrate compliance with valid court judgments recognising Obot’s rights.
The Supreme Court endorsed the Court of Appeal’s condemnation of the conduct as “a most sordid low in the administration of justice,” stressing that it was wholly incompatible with the constitutional obligations of the nation’s chief law officer.
Significantly, the apex court upheld the trial court’s declaration that Aondoakaa was not a fit and proper person to occupy the office of Attorney-General of the Federation. It also affirmed the consequential order permanently restraining him from holding the office of Attorney-General and agreed that, given the gravity of his conduct, he “ought not to be entrusted with any other public office at all.”
The court further upheld the award of ₦50 million in exemplary damages in favour of Emmanuel Obot, awarded an additional ₦2 million costs against Aondoakaa and affirmed the referral of the former Attorney-General to the Nigerian Bar Association for appropriate disciplinary proceedings arising from conduct the court considered inconsistent with the ethics of the legal profession.
Beyond the immediate parties, constitutional lawyers regard the decision as one of the judiciary’s strongest reaffirmations that no public official—including the nation’s chief law officer—is above the Constitution or at liberty to obstruct the enforcement of lawful court orders. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Attorney-General’s constitutional duty is not merely to represent government but to uphold the rule of law, protect the integrity of the justice system and ensure respect for judicial authority.
For the legal profession, the decision is equally significant. By endorsing disciplinary action against a serving Senior Advocate at the time of the impugned conduct, the Supreme Court underscored that professional eminence carries heightened ethical obligations and that breaches capable of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice will attract judicial censure.
For Emmanuel Obot, the judgment represents the culmination of almost fifteen years of litigation. For Nigeria’s constitutional order, it stands as an enduring affirmation that the authority of public office remains subordinate to the rule of law and that even the country’s highest legal officers are accountable to the courts.
