Abdullahi Abdullateef reports
“It is really sad witnessing the judiciary degenerated into this. Too much irregularities,” said Saheed Adebowale, a 400-level law student, in his comment to the petition he wrote against the Judiciary arm of the Law Students Society.
Adebowale had submitted a petition addressed to all the students’ stakeholders in the Law Faculty, including the Law Students Association of Nigeria (LAWSAN), Caliphate Law Clinic and the Judiciary itself, expressing his displeasure to the recent screening done for the selection to the position of the Senior Advocate of the Society (SAS).
Yearly, handpicked law students who participated actively in the practical aspect of law, especially the appearance in court, are elevated to the position of SAS, a microcosm of the prestigious Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
According to Adebowale, the LSS judiciary has a custom of elevating two student advocates from each four chambers in the faculty to the position of SAS. With this procedure, the total number of the senior advocates should be eight. But the present judicial officials decided to throw this custom into the bin.
They demanded all applicants to have five appearances in court in this academic session alone. Failure to meet up with this criterion means automatic disqualification.
Many students from the Faculty revealed the Judiciary’s refusal to adhere to the custom had denied a lot of students the title. And they are the students who would ordinarily have qualified for the position of the Senior Advocate.
While defending the new criterion, Jamiu Ishola, a 500-level law student and head of the judiciary disputed the existence of any custom in the selection of SAS. Disavowing the allegations, he said the nomination of two students from each chamber for Senior Advocate rank began during the last administration when he was the chief magistrate.
“The fact that each chamber in the faculty were asked to bring names of two students that are worthy to be promoted to the Senior Advocate of the Society is not a tradition and such is a blatant lie,” said Ishola.
“I am not saying this as the head of the judiciary but as a student of the faculty of law who has been in the system for close to seven years. When it comes to students that have seen more than enough in-as-far as the judiciary is concerned, I believe I am one of the references.
“ If at the end of the day, the result is out, and the two students with five appearances are not up to the standard to our satisfaction, there won’t be a Senior Advocate of the Society this year. We don’t want a Senior Advocate by name but rather a Senior Advocate by what it takes,” he added.
‘We are reinvigorating the falling standard’ — LSS Judge
Yusuf Balogun, a 500-level law student and one of the LSS Judges, admitted the judiciary modified the criteria for the elevation to the rank of the Senior Advocate. But for a noble reason.
According to him, the falling standard in the advocates who are elevated to the position of SAS pushed the present judicial officials to introduce strict criteria.
“The attitude of the students toward moot and mock trials compared to what is obtainable in other institutions in the country forced this administration to set a benchmark of at least five appearances before the LSSJ court in the current academic session as a condition precedent for any candidate to qualify for SAS screening,” Balogun said.
“There is no law or rule that mandates the current judiciary officials to adopt the criteria used last session, each administration is independent enough to come up with modalities that will be used for the selection of SAS.”
He continued that during the screening exercise, the nominees that failed to have the requisite five appearances before the LSSJ court in the current academic session were automatically disqualified from the screening.
“But it is quite impossible for those legal counsels to have five appearances in an academic session when we have only one court and over 300 students,” said a law student who pleaded anonymity. “The criterion is a deliberate decision to deny sound advocates the opportunity to be elevated to the rank of the Senior Advocate.”
Injustice in Temple of Justice
Adebowale, a legal counsel and Senior Associate at Professor M.L Ahmadu Chamber, was one of the students who were denied the position of SAS. He alleged that the screening conduct was marred with irregularities which create suspicion capable of undermining the selection process.
“The criterion of five appearances demanded by the Judiciary was originally disseminated on our online platforms without specification of academic session,” said Adebowale. This created an impression that the criterion was referring to all appearances from 100 level.
He said: “It was a great surprise to us that the LSS judiciary agreed that the circular released didn’t specify any session, we however noticed that a blue pen was later used to write: ‘Only this session’ to the subsequent circular released on the notice board and the same was not conveyed to the public through our regular online platform.”
If there is anywhere to seek justice, Adebowale argued, I believe it is the court. But what happens when the judicial officials are the ones promoting injustice.
“The mischievous and biased conducts deliberately displayed in the just concluded SAS screening is, of no doubt and prima facie in all manners, a proof that the integrity which their respectable seniors had rigorously built is not protected,” he wrote in his petition.