By: Solomon Okunu
I read with disbelief the remarks by Hon. Justice D.E. Osiagor in which he said “petitioner has made overtures to me, directly and indirectly, all of which I declined, may God judge the petitioner and his lawyers forever.” He then recused himself from the matter.
It is important to let the honourble judge understand that there is a dictum in law which states “He that alleges must prove” meaning that the person who makes a claim or allegation has the burden of proving it. It is an essential concept in both civil and criminal law, emphasizing that it is not enough to simply assert something; the claimant must provide evidence or arguments to support their claim.
Justice Osiagor cannot simply make emotional outbursts in the hallowed court by accusing a petitioner of trying to influence him without showing prove.
What he has done is to jeopardise the case, elongate the process of getting justice and tainting the petitioner and his legal team. This action has lead the legal team of the petitioner to withdraw their legal representation until this weighty allegation is resolved.
It is important to note that the case involving Maurice Etim, a minority shareholder and director in several Edmark Group companies in Nigeria, against Sam Low Ban Chai, the founder of Edmark Industries, has raised significant concerns regarding judicial impartiality and ethical misconduct. Etim is pursuing a legal case against the respondents, alleging signature forgery and other serious claims. The case has been presided over by Justice Osiagor after it was transferred from Justice Aneke, and his handling of the case has sparked allegations of bias.
In what has become disturbing issue to discerning minds, a key issue has been the apparent conflict of interest between Justice Osiagor and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN, who represents the respondents. Concerns have been raised about the potential lack of fairness in the proceedings due to the judge’s relationship with Adegboruwa SAN and his decisions in the case. For instance, Justice Osiagor appointed Samuel Ibrahim from Andersen LP as the court auditor, but it later emerged that Ibrahim had a prior professional relationship with Osiagor, raising ethical questions about impartiality. Moreover, Osiagor’s refusal to recuse himself from the case, despite allegations of bias, has fueled suspicions of favoritism towards the respondents.
In another troubling instance, Justice Osiagor granted a restraining order in favour of the respondents without a formal motion, and limited the petitioner’s access to key documents submitted to the court-appointed auditor, thereby undermining transparency and fairness in the proceedings. This has led to accusations that Osiagor is intentionally favoring the respondents and hindering the petitioner’s ability to challenge the audit findings.
Adegboruwa SAN’s actions have also raised eyebrows. After an unfavorable ruling by Justice Aneke, he petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), resulting in the judge’s recusal. This move, coming immediately after the unfavorable ruling, is seen as an attempt to influence the judicial assignment process and delay proceedings. Additionally, Adegboruwa SAN has obstructed police investigations by filing a suit to prevent police involvement in the case, presenting a private forensic report as evidence to dismiss allegations of forgery, and even involving rogue elements of the Nigerian Police to enforce civil court orders, which is a violation of due process.
Furthermore, Adegboruwa SAN publicized Justice Osiagor’s emotional remarks in court, drawing significant social media attention, which is an attempt to manipulate public opinion and influence the outcome of the case.
It is shocking that a judge of this clibre wil do this without providing proof.
There has been a pattern in the failure to uphold impartiality, deviation from standard procedures, and attempts to manipulate legal processes raise serious concerns that should warrant investigation by the National Judicial Council and other relevant disciplinary bodies.
I want to remind the judge that the burden of proof lies on him making that statement or argument. If someone asserts something, it’s their responsibility to substantiate their claim with facts, logic, or other forms of proof.
