Gani Fawehinmi Writes Parallax Snaps

“I hope you will allow your readers to hear the other side, otherwise you may be acting be acting unconstitutionally, Dele.”

Dear Sir,
I refer to your article entitled “Tony Momoh’s Triumph” published in the Sunday Concord of July 25, 1982. Among other things, you wrote in paragraph 17 that “by the time that the case reached the Court of Appeal, Yony Momoh’s attorneys lost interest, a rather curious action …” I wish to correct the impression you sought to create by that statement. It is not correct to say that his attorneys lost interest. In fact I was his attorney. For clarity, I hereby state the facts of his legal representation:

1. I represented Tony Momoh in Lagos High Court and obtained two favourable rulings on the 5th of March 1980 and 15th of April 1980 (see pages 21 and 105 of the 1981 Volume 1 of the Nigerian Constitutional Law Reports’).
2. The respondents appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.
3. On the 2nd of November 1981, my chambers received a Hearing Notice from the Federal Court of Appeal, Lagos. Fixing the hearing of the appeal for Monday, the 9th of November 1981. (copy of the Hearing Notice is attached herewith).
4. On the 9th November 1981 my chambers represented Tony Momoh.
5. On that day, the appeal was adjourned till the next session of the Court of Appeal.
6. By a letter the 12th of November, my chambers wrote two separate letters to both Tony Momoh and the Managing Director of Daily Times Limited seeking clearance or our representation for Tony Momoh in the appeal. (copies of the letters are attached herewith).
7. There was no reply from both of them.
8. The appeal was called on the 8th of February 1982 and my chambers represented Tony Momoh despite the fact that no clearance had been obtained and the case was adjourned to the 9th February 1982.
9. When the case was called on the 9th February 1982, my chambers appeared for Tony Momoh and intimated the Appeal Court with the fact that we had not received clearance from our clients and the appeal was adjourned to the 26th of April 1982.
10. On the 18th of February 1982, my chambers wrote to the Managing Director of Daily Times Limited stressing the urgency of the clearance.
11. By a letter dated the 22nd April 1982, from the Senior Legal Officer (Mr. Eke Obuba) to me, the Daily Times of Nigeria Limited wrote: “ I REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT I WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY APPROVAL TO INSTRUCT YOU TO APPEAR FOR TONY MOMOH, THE RESPONDENT IN THE CASE REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE, WHICH IS COMING UP AT THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL ON MONDAY 26TH APRIL, 1982.” (A copy of the letter is attached herewith).
12. By this non-clearance or rather a rejection of our representation, we cease to attend the court.
13. Suddenly, after Chief F.R.A. Williams had addressed the Federal Court of Appeal and had almost concluded his submission for the Appellant on the 26th of April 1982 and the case was adjourned to the 12th and 13th of May 1982, the Daily Times through its Senior Legal Officer (Mr. Eke Obuba), on the 10th of May 1982 wrote to me rescinding its earlier decision and “instructing” me to “conduct” the appeal on behalf of Tony Momoh.
14. A t the time the letter was received, I was in Bendel State High Court appearing for Chief Isagba against Alegbe before Justice Idahosa in Court No. 6.
15. On the 13th of May 1982, when the Tony Momoh case was to be continued, I was at Akure (from Benin) High Court appearing before Justice S.A Afonja in the case of Owa Ala Adegbite v. Governor of Ondo State.
16. I returned to Lagos on Friday the 13th of May 1982 to meet the letter of the Daily Times referred to in paragraph 13 above – long after the appeal had been concluded and judgment reserved.

From the above facts, it is clear that you are WRONG to have written that “By the time that case reached the Court of Appeal, Tony Momoh’s attorneys lost interest, a rather curious action …” I hope you will allow your readers to hear the other side, otherwise you may be acting unconstitutionally, Dele.

Yours sincerely,
Signed
Chief Gani Fawehinmi 

… And Onagoruwa Reacts

Dear Dele,
I have no desire whatsoever to begrudge you the privilege of using your column to eulogise Mr. Tony Momoh your former colleague in the Daily Times. However some facts were misstated and I feel obliged to correct these as one of the management staff of the Daily Times who participated in the decision making on the Senate invitation which led to the case. I was then the Group Legal Adviser of the company. Records, in this type of matter ought to be kept straight because of the future and posterity. I also believe that your mistakes were not intended. My main motivation derive from the observation in your column that “From the beginning, the Times management didn’t quite have the stomach for the type of trouble it felt that Tony Momoh was looking for by going to court. The initial support was tepid, and even that soon evaporated.” This observation of yours may properly apply to the present languid management in the Daily Times. Certainly it cannot apply to Dr. P.D. Cole’s management. Dr. Cole had his weaknesses but he never impeded the taking of good decisions for the DTN.

In the Tony Momoh’s case, Mr. Momoh himself was the “tepid” party. He was not really interested in the case going to court as it was his wont to avoid anything he considered controversial or anti-authority. It was Dr. Cole who referred the Senate invitation to me in my capacity as the Group Legal Adviser of DTN. I advised management that we should go to court to protect the independence of editorial freedom and to have the constitution interpreted. The only supported I had in the Daily Times management was Dr. Cole. Those who now run the Daily Times were opposed to our going to court. It is therefore not surprising that the Momoh’s case ended in this shameful manner. They are not interested in winning the case because the achievement has no meaning to them. It is therefore not true that management under Dr. Cole was “tepid.” I cannot help feeling that even the decision of Dr. Cole support the position of the Legal Department was conditioned by his experience in honouring the first invitation of the Senate when advised not to do so by me. By the time the Tony Momoh invitation came he had come to the realization that some members of the Senate were ignorant and small-minded people who felt that power only had a meaning when abused.

Although the decision of the Court of Appeal which s clearly retrogressive will be challenged in the right forum at the proper time, you may want to ask Mr. Momoh why he flung himself into such a delicate case at the appellate level when experience and Chief Fawehinmi had forewarned him. That case was of such monumental public interest that I believe that Chief Fawehinmi would have done it free of charge for the Daily Times. It was not a personal case of Tony Momoh which he has a prerogative to mishandle by his appearance in that case. Mr. Momh has serious damaged the public interest and the interest of journalists. Why should he be eulogized? Please stop blaming other people for the folly of Daily Times.

(Signed)
Dr. Olu Onagoruwa
Former Group Legal Adviser, DTN.

Dele Giwa Notes!

I take your correction with gratitude. You know very well that I would be the last person to denigrate the excellent Times management team headed by P.D. Cole. I was actually referring to the larger opposition in the Daily Times management. As you can see from Chief Fawehinmi’s letter on this page, the management of Daily Times did lose interest in pursuing the case. I disagree with your characterization of Tony Momoh. But no matter. 

©Sunday Concord, August 1, 1982
(Pp.166-169)