Justice Through Law, Not Detention: The Case of Dele Farotimi and Chief Afe Babalola | By Olusegun Ige

The judiciary is often seen as the bedrock of justice in any democracy, responsible for resolving disputes and upholding the rule of law. However, recent events involving Chief Afe Babalola and Mr. Dele Farotimi raise critical concerns about how justice is being administered in this particular matter.

Mr. Farotimi’s detention over alleged defamatory comments against Chief Afe Babalola, without recourse to a court of law, casts a shadow over the principles of fairness and due process. If Chief Afe Babalola, a highly respected legal luminary, has been defamed, why resort to police detention rather than addressing the issue through the courts?

1. Defamation Should Be Addressed in Court
Defamation is a civil offense that questions the integrity or reputation of an individual. The proper response to such allegations is a legal suit where evidence can be presented, and the truth can be established. Given Chief Afe Babalola’s stature and legal expertise, filing a lawsuit would have been a more appropriate and effective means of addressing the matter.

A court case would allow:

• Chief Babalola to present evidence refuting the allegations.
• Mr. Farotimi to defend or withdraw his claims, depending on their veracity.
• An impartial judge to mediate and deliver a fair ruling based on the facts.

This approach would demonstrate confidence in the judicial system, particularly from someone of Chief Babalola’s prominence.

2. Detention vs. Due Process
The decision to detain Mr. Farotimi rather than pursue legal action raises questions about fairness and the impartiality of the system. Detention without trial undermines the democratic principle of presumption of innocence and can be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate or silence dissent. This is particularly troubling when the matter could easily have been resolved in court.

3. Upholding the Judiciary’s Reputation
Chief Afe Babalola’s reputation as a legal giant is well-established. His decision to pursue justice through police detention rather than through the courts could unintentionally cast doubts on his confidence in the judiciary he has championed for decades. A defamation case, on the other hand, would serve as a testament to his belief in the system and provide an opportunity to set a precedent for handling similar disputes.

4. A Call for Judicial Leadership
As a senior advocate and a respected figure in the legal profession, Chief Afe Babalola has a unique opportunity to lead by example. By pursuing a defamation lawsuit, he could reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law and the principles of justice. This would not only address the allegations but also reinforce public confidence in the judiciary’s capacity to resolve disputes impartially.

My Candid Opinion
The judiciary must remain above reproach, and its processes must reflect fairness, transparency, and accountability. Detaining Mr. Farotimi instead of addressing the matter through the courts sends the wrong signal and undermines the credibility of the legal system.

Chief Afe Babalola, as an elder statesman and a custodian of legal principles, should consider withdrawing from police actions and pursuing justice through the courts. This would demonstrate a commitment to due process and strengthen the judiciary’s standing as the final arbiter of disputes.

Olusegun Ige
Editor-in-Chief, iCore News
Advancing Digital Business, Empowering Youth with Tech Skills, and Advocating for Sustainable Growth.

#FreeDeleFarotimi #Nigeria #Law #Judiciary #olusegunige #icorenews