The Supreme Court of Nigeria has warned Farooq Kperogi, a Nigerian professor based in the United States (US) against “unwarranted attacks” on the Nigerian judiciary.
Kperogi had criticized the Supreme Court over its recent judgment that confirmed former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Godswill Akpabio and Senate President Ahmad Lawan as senatorial candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25 elections.
In an article titled: “Lawan and Supreme Court of Shameless Judicial Bandits” which Kperogi authored and shared on social media platforms, he described the apex court “as the most hopeless Supreme Court in the history of the world’s supreme courts.”
And in a statement today, February 11, by the Supreme Court’s Director of Press and Information, Festus Akande, the apex court warned Kperogi and other Nigerians against attacking the judiciary, especially the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Olukayode Ariwoola.
Akande described Kperogi’s piece as an “an ineptly poorly scripted toxic article” that exposed “his irredeemable ignorance” about the law “with a view to pleasing his paymasters.”
He added that the silence of the Supreme Court over unwarranted attacks “must not be mistaken for weakness or cowardice.”
Akande frowned at Kperogi’s choice of words and cautioned Nigerians against violating the rights of others in the course of expressing their sentiments.
“Even in a state of emotional disequilibrium, we should be reasonable enough to make a good choice of decent words, as every word employed by the pen-happy Kperogi only succeeded in portraying the kind of vacuum that sign-posts all that he has as academic accomplishment.
“Certainly, every Nigerian citizen has an inalienable right to express his or her opinion without any encumbrance; but even in the course of expressing such fundamental right, we should be circumspect enough to observe the caution gate of self-control in order not to infringe on another person’s right.”
The Supreme Court spokesman said that all matters brought to Nigerian courts are thoroughly analysed and considered based on their merits “and not the faces that appear in court or sentiments that attempt to becloud the sense of reasoning”.
“So, for anyone in his or her right frame of mind to insinuate that the Justices have been bought over by some unknown and unseen persons is, to say the least, a bizarre expression of ignorance, which definitely has no place in law or even in the realm of pedestrian reasoning.”