"I Wouldn't Question the Integrity of Members of Panel, But It Seems Suspicious"—Omotosho Berates SU Panel.

The just concluded Call to the Bar ceremony witnessed some new additions as regards standardizing the procedure for legal practice in the Student Union court. The event was organised by the SU Judicial Council in conjunction with the Student Union Bar.

During the auspicious event, new wigs were inducted into the Bar and four distinguished law students were conferred with the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of the Union (S.A.U).

However, before the induction proper, a call for application was made along with the criteria prescribed by the panel constituted by the Chief Justice to screen candidates for the said rank. One of the interested applicants who applied for the post was not considered by the Panel, and claims the panel is yet to any reason for his exclusion despite the fact that he met the requirements of the law.

In this exclusive interview with UCJ UNILORIN, Mr. Omotosho shares his thoughts and feelings about the whole issue. Enjoy!
---------------------------------------------------------------

UCJ: Can we meet you, sir?

Omotosho: I am Omotosho Muhammad, sir.

UCJ: What's your take on the just concluded Call to the Bar Ceremony?

Omotosho: I can't really say much about it because I wasn't present at the event. But I'm using this medium to congratulate the new wigs and the newly inducted members of the Inner Bar.

UCJ: We learnt you applied to be shortlisted for the rank of Senior Advocate of the Union, why weren't you considered?

Omotosho: I have no clue as to why not. I mean, I submitted my application, and I was punctual to the screening conducted afterwards. I met the requirements listed. It was puzzling when I wasn't considered.

No reason was made known to me by the members of the panel or the Chief Justice of the Union. Even in the conventional world, if a person applies for the title of Senior Advocate of Nigeria and he isn't shortlisted, the panel makes known to him the reason(s) why he wasn't considered.

This gives the person the chance to appeal the decision. Courtesy demands it.

UCJ: Are you saying the SU Bar did not communicate this to you, sir?

Omotosho: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. However, the panel wasn't created by the Bar, but by the Chief Justice of the Union. The C.J. is required by law to constitute a panel as regards the conferment of the title of S.A.U. No one communicated anything to me. It's a curious case I must admit.

UCJ: What's your view about the profile of those shortlisted for the rank of SAU?

Omotosho: Distinguished persons. They are experienced members of the Bar. Knowledgeable as well.

UCJ: So, you don't have any issue with their being selected?

Omotosho: No, I don't.

UCJ: So, do you have any bone of contention with the selection process?

Omotosho: That I do. It seems like I was witch-hunted. There was a reason why there were requirements which had to be met. Those requirements were conditions precedent. I met the requirements and exceeded it. I was punctual to the screening as requested. There hasn't been any explanation whatsoever afterwards. I believe they owe it to me. This is disrespectful to say the least. I've been dedicated to the legal practice ever since I was called to the Bar.

UCJ: We learnt it was boldly stressed that the panel has exclusive right of interpreting the requirements as they apply to each situation?

Omotosho: Of course it was stated. This raises certain questions. What does that even mean? What situation? There were specific requirements. Why would that be further included? Seems to have been engineered as an excuse to not confer some persons.

UCJ: Could you shed more light on that, please?

Omotosho: A specific provision is sufficient enough. The requirements were specific enough. But the additional note made it discretionary. Why then were those previous requirements stated? When you state that certain requirements have to be met for something, after those requirements have been satisfied, the next thing is to do the needful.

I wouldn't question the integrity of the members of the panel, but it seems suspicious. Right from the moment some of us saw the additional note, we knew something wasn't right. The fact that no reason was given to me makes it more suspicious.

UCJ: Will you seek redress in court?

Omotosho: No, I won't. It's like them being judges in their own case. 4 of the 5 members of the panel are Justices. And also, our law here doesn't provide for an appeal like the conventional practice.

Nevertheless, I respect their decision. Though it raises lots of eyebrows.

UCJ: What implication does it have for the future of legal practice in Unilorin?

Omotosho: I believe it'll be like what happens in the conventional world. Those who are in the Inner Bar get privileges. They're also at an advantage when it comes to getting high profile cases and appointments in to top positions. For example, a person who is a S.A.U. has a better chance of being the Attorney General, or being the President of the Bar ahead of persons like me. It seems unfair, but that's just the way it is.

UCJ: What message do you have for our readers as regards this issue?

Omotosho: To the student legal practitioners, they shouldn't be discouraged. It's easy to be discouraged when you hear the story of someone who gives his all and is dedicated to the practice of law, and yet, is denied such a recognition for efforts. They should continue to practice, and be their best at what they do. *What will be will be.

And to the Chief Justice of the Union, I believe the Court Rules that is being amended at present should provide for an appeal in instances like this i.e. being able to seek redress.

Osuji Chima Francis
UCJ, UNILORIN.