When legal titans clash, the pillars of justice tremble.
Such is the case in Nigeria today, where a high-profile confrontation between Afe Babalola, a venerable 95-year-old legal luminary, and Dele Farotimi, a vocal activist-lawyer, has exposed deep fractures in the nation’s legal and democratic systems.
What began as a property dispute and a controversial book has escalated into a landmark case that challenges fundamental principles of free speech, legal procedure and institutional integrity.
Afe Babalola is an icon of Nigeria’s legal profession.
Over six decades, he has built a towering reputation as a lawyer, educator and statesman.
At 95, he remains active and influential, embodying professional longevity and achievement.
His legacy is deeply intertwined with the judicial and educational fabric of Nigeria, particularly in Ekiti State, where his contributions to law and education are monumental.
He had built a name.
On the other hand, Dele Farotimi represents a younger, more confrontational generation of legal professionals.
A lawyer-activist, he is unafraid to challenge the status quo, often critiquing government policies and judicial practices.
With a growing social media presence on platforms like TikTok and WhatsApp, Farotimi positions himself as a cynic and outspoken advocate for justice and accountability, in the mold of legendary human rights champions like Gani Fawehinmi and Aka Bashorun.
Interestingly, both Babalola and Farotimi are supporters of the Labour Party and its former presidential aspirant, Peter Obi.
Yet, despite their shared political alignment, their legal philosophies could not be more different.
While Babalola exemplifies the traditional, hierarchical legal establishment, Farotimi embodies a bold, insurgent approach to law and activism.
This ideological clash has now become a defining moment for Nigeria’s justice system and public discourse.
The conflict between these two figures originated from a property dispute that Babalola won at the Supreme Court.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, Farotimi chose to respond in an unconventional manner: by publishing a book titled Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System.
While Babalola exemplifies the traditional, hierarchical legal establishment, Farotimi embodies a bold, insurgent approach to law and activism
The book, which was largely unknown, quickly became a bestseller on Amazon once Babalola acted in response to its paragraphs.
In the book, Farotimi alleged systemic corruption within Nigeria’s legal system and specifically named Babalola, some individuals and Supreme Court justices as emblematic of these problems.
Babalola’s response to the allegations in Farotimi’s book has raised serious concerns about the misuse of legal power.
Instead of pursuing a civil defamation case, as is standard in democratic societies, Babalola resorted to criminal charges, setting off a series of troubling legal maneuvers.
First, there is an appearance of jurisdictional overreach.
The alleged defamation occurred in Lagos, but Babalola pursued criminal charges in Ekiti State, resulting in Farotimi’s forced transfer across jurisdictions.
This raised questions about the fairness and legality of the proceedings.
Secondly, there are reasons to claim disproportionate response.
Farotimi was arrested, handcuffed, and detained without bail—a wildly excessive reaction to a defamation claim.
Such heavy-handed tactics are more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than a democratic state.
Thirdly, there is a misapplication of criminal defamation to the case.
The case itself does not meet the basic criteria for criminal defamation, which typically requires proof of public disorder or harm to political or social peace.
Instead, it appears to be a punitive measure aimed at silencing a critic.
This case is about far more than a personal legal dispute.
It reflects a broader tension between entrenched legal power structures and rising voices of dissent in Nigeria. Nigerians have been divided but Farotimi has won a lot of sympathy and recognition.
Babalola’s actions signal an outdated model of legal intimidation by those with means and power, that seeks to suppress criticism rather than engage with it constructively.
Criminal defamation laws, long criticized by international human rights organizations, are dangerous tools for suppressing free speech.
You could only find remnants of such laws in some countries, such as India, Thailand, and parts of Africa, where criminal defamation laws are enforced by the state to whip the citizens into line.
Babalola’s approach represents a dangerous regression in legal and democratic norms, a reminder that power, when threatened, often resorts to suppression rather than dialogue
Even in jurisdictions where criminal defamation laws exist, individuals do not typically wield the power to enforce them directly, as Babalola has done in this case.
His actions highlight a troubling erosion of legal norms in Nigeria and a misuse of institutional power to settle personal scores.
By attempting to criminalize critique, powerful individuals like Babalola undermine the very democratic principles that the legal system is meant to uphold.
In modern democracies, defamation is generally treated as a civil matter, with victims seeking monetary compensation through the courts.
Criminalizing defamation, which is more of a colonial legacy, is anachronistic. Such laws are often weaponized to stifle dissent and punish critics, rather than to ensure justice.
Far from bolstering his reputation, Babalola’s response has had the opposite effect.
Instead of silencing Farotimi, it has amplified his message and elevated him to national prominence as a symbol of resistance against institutional overreach.
The sales of the allegedly libelous book have gone through the roof on Amazon.com, the very effect that Babalola aims to reverse.
Babalola’s legacy, painstakingly built over decades, now risks being overshadowed by this controversy.
His recourse to punitive legal action has exposed the very systemic flaws that Farotimi’s book critiques.
By appearing to weaponize the legal system against a critic, Babalola has inadvertently validated the criticisms leveled against him and the broader judiciary.
The true strength of a legal system lies not in its ability to suppress dissent but in its capacity to engage with criticism constructively.
Babalola’s approach represents a dangerous regression in legal and democratic norms, a reminder that power, when threatened, often resorts to suppression rather than dialogue.
In doing so, he has turned a relatively obscure activist into a national figure and intensified scrutiny of the very institutions he seeks to defend.
If faced with defamation at 95, I would have exercised better judgment.
Rather than lashing out, I would have sought to engage constructively, using the tools of the legal system to demonstrate the strength of my case and the integrity of my legacy.
Instead of trying to destroy the system that enabled my rise, I would have worked to strengthen it, recognizing that true greatness lies in magnanimity and measured response.
Once can appreciate that Babalola, at 95 years, does not have the luxury of time.
But as a legal luminary, he knows he can make a plea to the court to expedite his case on account of his old age.
He didn’t do that. Instead he chose to pull the dagger and by so doing, brought the legal system to the fringes of primitivity.
Farotimi’s rise in this saga underscores a generational shift in Nigerian legal practice.
While older practitioners often rely on hierarchical structures and deference, younger advocates demand action, responsibility, transparency and are unafraid to challenge entrenched power.
This generational divide reflects broader societal changes, as Nigerians increasingly call for accountability and reform in all sectors of public life that reflects what exists in the global village.
The tiger may have roared, but the cat has outsmarted him.
Through Babalola’s overreach, Farotimi has gained a platform he could not have achieved on his own.
This case is a cautionary tale for Nigeria’s legal elite: in the age of social media and rising public awareness, attempts to suppress dissent are more likely to backfire than succeed.
The real test of strength is not in silencing critics but in addressing their critiques with integrity and fairness.
As Nigeria continues to evolve, cases like this will test all systems. Whatever does not hold will collapse.
Will Nigeria’s institutions embrace transparency, accountability, and the democratic principles they should uphold?
Or will they cling to outdated, authoritarian methods of conflict resolution that serves the powerful?
The outcome of this confrontation will resonate far beyond the courtroom, shaping the trajectory of justice and democracy in Nigeria for years to come.
I pray that the case will not be settled behind closed doors, but that it will fully test the strength and resilience of the legal system.
