The publication authored by Umar Abdulahi Chiroma, Esq. is replete with conjecture, innuendo, and sweeping conclusions that are neither supported by judicial findings nor established facts. It is unfortunate that a matter currently subject to judicial determination has been deliberately mischaracterized to create a false narrative capable of prejudicing public opinion.

At the outset, it is trite law that the institution of legal proceedings and the invocation of the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction are constitutionally guaranteed rights. The mere filing of an action or the procurement of interim judicial relief cannot, without more, be portrayed as an attempt to undermine democracy or impose a candidate. Such a proposition is legally untenable and fundamentally inconsistent with the rule of law.

The repeated attribution of the actions of independent litigants to Aare Muyiwa Akinboro, SAN, without any credible evidence establishing authorization, instigation, or complicity, is speculative, reckless, and manifestly defamatory. In law, liability cannot be founded on assumption, political rhetoric, or guilt by association.

Equally disturbing is the attempt to denigrate ongoing judicial proceedings by branding them as “forum shopping” without any judicial pronouncement to that effect. The propriety of venue and jurisdiction are legal questions reserved exclusively for determination by the courts, not by commentators seeking to influence public perception. Any assertion to the contrary amounts to an invitation to trial by media and constitutes an unwarranted interference with the administration of justice.

It is also ironic that those professing fidelity to democratic principles appear unwilling to respect one of democracy’s most fundamental pillars—the right of every citizen to seek judicial redress where legal rights are perceived to have been infringed. Resort to the courts is not an act of desperation; it is an affirmation of confidence in the rule of law.

Furthermore, it is a settled principle that interim or ex parte orders are judicial acts issued by courts in the exercise of their constitutional powers.

Any dissatisfaction with such orders should be ventilated through the appellate process or appropriate legal procedures—not through inflammatory public commentary designed to impugn litigants, counsel, or judicial officers.

The attempt to portray lawful judicial proceedings as evidence of electoral weakness is not only legally unsustainable but also intellectually dishonest. Courts exist precisely to resolve disputes arising from electoral and institutional processes. Seeking judicial intervention cannot reasonably be equated with an intention to subvert democracy.

It is therefore respectfully submitted that the publication is calculated more to inflame passions than to illuminate legal issues. Members of the Nigerian Bar Association are sufficiently discerning to distinguish between legitimate legal processes and politically motivated commentary.

Ultimately, respect for the rule of law demands that all parties allow the courts to determine the issues before them without resorting to media trials, unfounded imputations, or attempts to prejudice pending proceedings. That, and not sensational rhetoric, is the hallmark of genuine commitment to justice, due process, and the democratic ideals of the Nigerian Bar Association.

High Chief Luke C. Ihua Esq JP