Akpata’s pilatic verdict: Is this bravery or bravado? – Part 2

Continued from yesterday

I had in passing, referenced a petition wherein, the Registered Trustees of the NBA is the applicant, against Mrs. Adekunbi Ogunde, a partner in the law firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co.

The fact that the NBA has suddenly woken up to its disciplinary responsibilities would have excited some of us. However, for so many reasons, the excitement only lasted until the last paragraph of the petition.

At first, the body of the petition had chronologically highlighted the genealogy of the petition. In fact, it had reproduced in extenso, Mrs. Ogunde’s email, which is the subject of controversy and of course, misconduct.

Fair enough, the petition also mentioned the fact that the author of the email (the Respondent) took responsibility for the email, admitted the allegation and sought to “exculpate her law firm.” However, the same person is praying for the LPDC to consider whether the partners of the firm, that is Wole Olanipekun and Bode Olanipekun (and other partners in the firm which I do not know) are not liable to be disciplined.

The reason for this goose chase, according to the petition, is that the respondent, Mrs. Ogunde has the ostensible authority to act as partner. This kind of position, supposedly coming from persons perceived as senior lawyers, leaves more to be desired in terms of aptitude, know-how and capacity. It leaves more questions than answers. If you are convinced that the other partners are also culpable, why then did you need the direction of the LPDC as to whether they should be disciplined? Did you seek the same direction from the LPDC before bringing the petition against the current respondent? According to the author, the basis for seeking this directive is that the lady in question had ostensible authority to act as a partner.

Interestingly, one would have expected that people who occupy the highest offices in the NBA would know better that one of the exceptions to the vicarious liability of a partnership is in relation to acts done without the authority of the firm and acts which are not apparently for carrying on the business of the partnership in the usual way.

Having, therefore, admitted that their respondent, Ogunde had already admitted to her wrongdoing, by stating categorically that she never had the instruction of anyone to so do, it then smacks of malafide for Akpata and his crew to urge the LPDC to consider whether the partners also ought to be disciplined.

Meanwhile, can there even be vicarious criminal or quasi-criminal liability? The foregoing contentions are more so, in light of the recent decision of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Suit No. NICN /PHC/120/2021 between Mr. Wilson Udo Essien v. Unitech Drilling Company Ltd, where the court in an entirely different matter on June 15, 2022, held that the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners in Nigeria (RPC) 2007, regulate individual lawyer’s conduct and not that of the law firm. This position is a restatement of several directions of the LPDC over the years, which Akpata and his men ought to have known better.

In any event, anyone who thinks that their slips as indicated above is innocent ones, committed in good faith, would have had a rethink, seeing Olumide Akpata’s follow-up letter, which for reasons best known to them, they chose to give a very wide media circulation.

The said letter lays bare, the primary intendment of the petition, being the desire to get at the ‘big fish’. Otherwise, how would you explain a call for Olanipekun’s “stepping aside” as BOB Chairman, when in fact, the LPDC is meant to be an independent committee and appeals go directly to the Supreme Court? Is Olumide Akpata truly telling the whole world that his intendment of including the very nocuous clause in the closing paragraph of the supposed petition was to lay a foundation for the mischief? 

Is the Akpata laying a precedent that for the sin of every partner in a law firm, the heads of all other partners must roll, even when the partner does not deny sole responsibility? Can Akpata in his heart of hearts, devoid of shenanigans and grandstanding, truly come out to say that for the misconduct of any or all of the other 13 partners in his law office, he would submit himself to the Golgotha? It is still very fresh in our minds how Mr. Emmanuel Ukala, the immediate past chairman of the LPDC and some other members of the LPDC whose name I cannot immediately recall, resigned in protest, citing attempts at unlawfully meddling into the affairs of the LPDC by the BOB? Like Akpata’s letter, Mr. Ukala’s letter was also made public and he was not equivocal about Olanipekun’s stance about the independence of the LPDC from the BOB and the impropriety of an intervention.

So, what has changed now? Have we quickly forgotten that the election that ushered in Akpata as NBA president was conducted at a period when the then President, Paul Usoro, SAN was undergoing a criminal trial at the Federal High Court? It is rather a coincidence that it is this same Olanipekun that led the team of lawyers in defence of Mr. Usoro, who was later discharged and acquitted by the court.

So, if we are all to dance to Akpata’s shuffle groove, then Usoro ought to have resigned while the trial lasted, thus convicting himself ahead of the court’s acquittal. Suggesting a ‘stepping aside’ to Olanipekun by someone who acts as the face of the complainant implies that even in the absence of a petition against Olanipekun, Akpata already considers him guilty of the charges currently lying somewhere in Akpata’s mind.

If Akpata lacks faith and confidence in the LPDC, he should be bold enough to say so, as his current approach suggests that he considers all the members of the LPDC as men who lack the requisite independent-mindedness to discharge their functions. These issues deserve thorough interrogation as we all cannot be railroaded by Akpata’s bravado.

Concluded
Babagana is an Abuja-based lawyer.