Justice Lifu: NBA drags Atiku’s lawyer Kalu Kalu before disciplinary panel
By Ayorinde Oluokun
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has petitioned the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over alleged insulting remarks made by a lawyer, Kalu Kalu, against a judicial officer during a television programme.
Kalu, a member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kalu Kalu, Esq. had allegedly insulted Justice Peter O. Lifu of the Federal High Court over the judgment delivered against the party during his recent appearance on Channels Television.
Kalu, had who appeared on the November 11, 2026 edition of Politics Today, had referred to Justice Lifu as “coconut judge”, while analysing the judgment which many said knocked the candidate of ADC, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar out of the 2027 presidential race.
Kalu, however, disagreed with that interpretation saying there was nothing in the judgment that voided the candidacy of Atiku.
Kalu who is also one of the lawyers of Atiku went on to rain insult on the judge, an action he defended by saying the Court of Appeal had said the same thing about the judicial officer.
However, the host of the programme cautioned cautioning the lawyer against disparaging a sitting judge and demanding that he withdraw the statement.
“Because of time, I do withdraw it,” Kalu stated, while noting that any disagreement he had with the judge could be expressed through discussion of the substance of the matter.
However, in a statement on Friday, NBA President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, condemned what she described as unacceptable language directed at a judge by Kalu during the November 11 edition of Politics Today.
Badejo-Okusanya said she watched a recording of the programme and was disturbed by the remarks, stressing that lawyers must maintain professional conduct even when expressing disagreement with judicial decisions.
She said disagreement with a judge’s decision, no matter how strongly held, could not justify personal attacks against the judicial officer who delivered the judgment.
According to her, lawyers have every right to scrutinise judgments, challenge judicial reasoning and expose errors, but such criticism must be based on legal arguments rather than personal insults.
The NBA president maintained that judges must be held accountable for the exercise of their judicial powers, adding that the association would continue to demand accountability from the Bench.
However, she warned that personal attacks against judges neither establish that a judgment is wrong nor provide any legal remedy for an aggrieved litigant.
“Instead, they diminish the quality of public debate and bring our profession into disrepute,” she said.
The NBA president explained that the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, require lawyers to maintain high standards of professional behaviour and treat courts with respect, dignity and honour.
She added that the rules also provide channels through which complaints against judicial officers can be presented to the appropriate authorities.
Badejo-Okusanya said these professional obligations remained binding on lawyers regardless of the platforms on which they expressed their opinions.
She further noted that members of the public expected lawyers discussing court judgments to help them understand the legal issues, judicial reasoning and available remedies.
Consequently, the NBA president confirmed that she had forwarded a formal petition, alongside the relevant broadcast recording, to the LPDC for consideration in accordance with established procedures.
She, however, emphasised that Kalu would be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
According to her, the determination of whether professional misconduct occurred and the appropriate sanction, if any, would be left to the disciplinary committee.
“Respect for due process does not, however, require the NBA to remain silent about language that falls below the standards we expect of our members,” she stated.
The NBA president also urged lawyers to recognise that the manner in which they criticise judicial decisions reflects on the entire legal profession.
She said the Bar must be able to demand accountability from the Bench while simultaneously enforcing discipline within its own ranks.
“Our credibility depends on our willingness to do both,” she added.
She urged members of the profession to speak firmly, disagree profoundly and challenge judicial decisions with all the force permitted by law, but without abandoning the standards of conduct expected of legal practitioners.