By Sylvester Udemezue

(1). While we await report of the “investigation” said to have been “launched” by the EFCC, I need to humbly offer my opinion on an aspect of this video which, in my view, smacks of crass ignorance of the law on the part of the presenter of the video clip.

(2). Assuming it’s true that Femi Falana, SAN, had indeed advised Bobrisky to apply for pardon (prerogative of mercy pursuant to Section 175 ,CFRN, 1999), does this fact bring any taint upon Mr Femi Falana or in any way make Femi Falana complicit in any alleged or seeming perversion of justice or encouragement of corruption?

(3). The answer in my opinion is NO.

(4). MY REASONS:

(a). With due respect, there is absolutely nothing wrong in a prisoner approaching a lawyer for legal advice. If Bobrisky had indeed contacted FALZ and FALZ got his father, the respected learned silk Femi Falana to offer legal advice, that if Bobrisky wished to come out before the end of his jail term, one option open to Bobrisky was to apply for pardon pursuant to Section 175 of the CFRN, 1999, I see absolutely nothing wrong in the advice.

(b). Also, such a piece of advice by the learned silk under the circumstances, does not mean the learned silk was encouraging corruption; from the facts Bobrisky wasn’t convicted of with corruption but of spraying money, which in my view, is a very minor offense that has nothing to do with corruption or money laundering. I was even shocked that Bobrisky was sent to prison over such a minor breach of the law, especially considering he had pleaded; payment of fine should have been enough punishment for such minor infraction. Every right-thinking person should be surprised, as I am, especially considering we are in an era when restorative justice is being encouraged.

(c). Finally, it’s possible that as of the time Mr Falana offered the alleged legal advice, Mr Falana was not aware that Bobrisky wasn’t serving the jail term in any prison but at a lodge near prison. There is no evidence showing in the video clip, that Bobrisky disclosed such fact to Mr Falana. Hence, Mr Falana was entitled to assume that Bobrisky was speaking to him from the prison yard. After all, more often than not, prisoners are allowed even by prison wardens to use phones imfrom inside the prison.

(4). Conclusion: In my opinion, if this story is true, then the evidence available from only the video clip exculpates learned silk Falana from any wrongdoing and from any unprofessional conduct. With due respect, the presenter of the video has unjustifiably called out Mr Falana, out of his (the presenter’s own) ignorance of the extant law. He accordingly owes Mr Femi Falana, SAN, an apology for this smear campaign, founded upon ignorance, against Mr Falana. He should additionally retract this false allegation and false representation against the learned silk.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Proctor,
The Reality Ministry (TRM).
08109024556.
[email protected].
(25/09/2024)