Afe Babalola petitions LPDC, wants Dele Farotimi barred from law practice

The 90-page petition dated December 6, 2024 was signed by a partner in the law firm, Ola Faro, who was also mentioned in Farotimi’s book, “Nigeria and its criminal justice system.”

The petition is titled “PETITION AGAINST TOMILOLA TITUS FAROTIMI (ALSO KNOWN AS DELE FAROTIMI ESQ), A NIGERIAN LAWYER CALLED TO THE NIGERIAN BAR WITH HIS NAME ON THE ROLL OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS KEPT BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR VIOLATION OF THE EXTANT RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES 1, 15(1), 15(2B), 15(3A), 15(3G), 15(3I), 15(3J),26(1), 27(1), 30, 31(1), (2) and (4) OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 2023 BY BRINGING THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY IN NIGERIA INTO DISREPUTE WITH HIS UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST EMINENT JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA, JUDGES OF HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE, AARE AFE BABALOLA SAN, OLU DARAMOLA SAN, OLA FARO ESQ, AND THE ENTIRE CHAMBERS OF AFE BABALOLA & CO IN HIS BOOK TITLED ‘NIGERIA AND ITS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.”

Ola Faro who stated that he was writing both in his personal capacity “and for and on behalf of the law firm of Afe Babalola & Co.”, gave a background of the facts of the case and detailed the contraventions of the rules of professional conduct by the respondent, Farotimi.

According to the petitioners, Farotimi “engaged in conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner by making false accusations against the Supreme Court and the legal profession.”

The petitioners also stated that Farotimi “Participated in conduct that he believes to be unlawful by bribing judicial officers and having unlawful access to a judicial officer.”

“Joined his clients in committing misconduct and breach of law with reference to judicial officers by having unlawful access to a judicial officer.

“Gave service to his client which he knows is capable of causing a breach of law and disrespect and corrupting a judicial officer.

“Knowingly made false statement of law and facts in respect to a case already decided by the Supreme Court.”