ADC Accuses NBA: Kalu Disciplinary Action Politically Motivated

• The African Democratic Congress (ADC) accused the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of political bias after the NBA referred lawyer Kalu Kalu to a disciplinary panel.
• Kalu Kalu was referred for describing Federal High Court Justice Peter Lifu as a "coconut judge" on a television program while discussing a political judgment.
• The ADC questioned the NBA's selective action, noting the association's prior silence when the Court of Appeal criticized Justice Lifu's conduct as "judicial impertinence" and "judicial rascality."
• The party warned the NBA against being perceived as siding with the ruling party and urged it to address alleged misconduct within the judiciary rather than targeting lawyers who speak out.
• The ADC asserted that lawyers should not be silenced by demands for respect for the courts when confronted with perceived injustice or wrongdoing.

The ADC concluded that although lawyers should exercise restraint, they should not be expected to remain silent when confronted with wrongdoing.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has sharply criticized the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), alleging that the professional body is aligning itself with the ruling political party. This accusation follows the NBA's decision to refer lawyer Kalu Kalu to a disciplinary panel due to comments he made concerning a Federal High Court judge, Justice Peter Lifu. The NBA formally petitioned the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) regarding these remarks.

Kalu Kalu, who serves as a lawyer for former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and is a member of the ADC, made the contentious statements during the November 11 edition of Channels Television’s Politics Today program, hosted by Seun Okinbaloye. During the broadcast, Kalu characterized Justice Lifu as a "coconut judge." His comments were made in the context of discussing a Federal High Court judgment from November 5, which pertained to a leadership dispute within a political party. Kalu used the platform to challenge interpretations suggesting that this judgment effectively disqualified Atiku from the 2027 presidential race.

The ADC, in a statement released on Saturday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, questioned the NBA's motivation for pursuing disciplinary action against Kalu Kalu. The party highlighted what it perceived as the NBA's inconsistent approach, noting that the association had not demonstrated similar concern when the Court of Appeal previously criticized Justice Peter Lifu's conduct. The ADC specifically referenced a June 2026 Court of Appeal ruling that described Justice Lifu’s actions as the “highest form of judicial impertinence,” further citing a Supreme Court precedent that characterized such behavior as “judicial rascality.”

The ADC questioned why the NBA remained silent when the appellate court raised these significant concerns about the judge's conduct, yet now finds its voice because a lawyer, who is also a politician, has made statements that some find uncomfortable. The party warned the NBA against being drawn into political conflicts, particularly on the side of a ruling party that, according to the ADC, openly boasts about controlling judicial institutions and the Nigerian Bar. While acknowledging the importance of professional restraint and respect for institutions, the ADC labeled the NBA's reaction to Kalu’s remarks as selective.

The ADC emphasized that while personal attacks against judicial officers should not be encouraged, the NBA also has a responsibility to address conduct that could erode public confidence in the judiciary. The party accused the NBA of disproportionately focusing on Kalu Kalu's comments rather than tackling alleged misconduct within the legal profession and the judiciary itself. The ADC argued that respect for the courts should not compel lawyers to remain silent when confronted with perceived injustice.

According to the ADC, the NBA cannot credibly demand respect for the judiciary while appearing indifferent to actions that bring the judiciary into disrepute. The party maintained that although lawyers must exercise restraint, they should not be expected to stay silent when faced with wrongdoing. The ADC concluded that there is no respectful way to address evil, implying that the NBA should not expect lawyers to find one when speaking out against perceived injustices.

This development highlights the significant disciplinary risks for lawyers making public comments about judicial officers, particularly when those comments are critical or perceived as disrespectful. Lawyers should be acutely aware of the potential for referral to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, even if their statements echo prior judicial criticisms or are made in a political context. It also raises questions about the consistency and perceived impartiality of the NBA's disciplinary actions.

Source: Original reporting via PUNCH