Law Personality ‘Introduction of written address is damaging law practice’

Ahmed Olatunji Alawaye ESQ, an Ilorin-based legal practitioner, is son of a renowned legal luminary, astute politician and one time Commissioner for Information in Kwara State, late Barr. Saad Dorusinlohun Alawaye. The surviving Alawaye, who is the Principal Partner, Ahmed Alawaye and Co (Unity Chambers), told PILOT JUDICIARY how his late Dad's name has been opening doors for him, challenges in the profession and other national issues in this interview. Excerpt.

How has the legal practice been so far? We thank God, though it has been challenging. But with dedication, hard work and prayer, we are able to achieve the little we have achieved. What is an achievement? Achievement is not in form of money or wealth but it is fulfilment. I had a dream of becoming a lawyer. I had a dream of having my own law firm and I thank God it has become a reality. That is the little achievement I referred to. I had it in mind that the demise of Unity Chambers, which was the chambers of my late dad would not serve as discouragement rather I would ensure that I revive the Unity Chambers and today, Ahmed Alawaye and Co, is also known as Unity Chambers. It has been though, but I thank God I have my own private law firm. Your late dad was lawyer, how has his name influenced your career? Well, had it been my late dad was not a good man, I would have changed my name and possibly leave Ilorin for a new environment, especially where he was not known. But because my dad was a good man, his name is what I'm basically living on now. The big briefs I got were as a result of his name. “Oh! Saad Alawaye, I know him very well. He was my friend. I can see his face in you. He was honest. He was humble and responsible,” those are most testimonies from his friends and former clients. What are those feats he was unable to achieve that you hope to achieve and surpass? Apart from being a legal practitioner, my dad was a strong politician in Kwara State, who had served as a civilian Commissioner under Captain Ibrahim Alkali's regime as Sole Administrator of Kwara State. Being a commissioner is one of the top positions one can attain in politics, but I believe if my dad were to be alive he would have risen beyond that politically. Also, he was exactly 10 years at the bar when he died. He ought to have applied for the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). He was unable to achieve that during his life time. So, I hope I surpass him in achievements both in the legal profession and political field. What is your take on corruption in Nigeria judicial system? Yes, one cannot deny corruption is our judicial system, but I want to say that era had gone. Before now, we are of the belief that corruption has really eaten deep into the fabrics of our judicial system, but with the measures being taken by the National Judicial Council (NJC) and other disciplinary authorities; it has reduced corruption to a minimal percentage. What are those things you detest as far as legal profession is concerned? I want to say with due respect that introduction of written addresses in litigation is what I detest most as of present day legal practice. As of old, there is nothing like written address. Brilliant lawyers are always discovered in court through oral address. They exhibit their advocacy skills. Lawyer will be seen articulating their minds. Everything is not about academics, especially; the written address has limited legal practice to academic exercise, which ought not to be. I was in a court recently and I wanted to oppose an application for tendering a document; I was prepared to address the court in relation to that but unfortunately I was informed by the Judge that “Mr Alawaye, go and file a written address.” I was demoralised. This is because by then issues might have cropped up that would have caused more damages to the case. Lawyers should be seen being articulate, fluent but all these cannot be discovered through written address. The written address can be done by anybody; it is just for me to append my signature. Oral address is the crux of practice. In the olden days, young lawyers are discovered through oral address in court; because it provided opportunity to display their oratory and advocacy skills. As matter of fact, written address exposes your legal arsenal in court. The tactics you would have used against opposing counsels would have been revealed in the written address, which you are required to adopt in court with limited time. So, I believe the written address should be liberalised. It should be optional. If any lawyer is ready to address the court orally, the Judge should take it. As a lawyer, where do you see yourself in the next ten years? In the next ten years, I hope to be in the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). In fact, ten years is a far period, I'm working towards being one of the youngest SAN; God willing. What is your take on argument and counter argument of lawyers regarding National Assembly leadership election, especially that of Senate? I was opportune to watch the proceeding live on Television and whenever someone comments negatively, the question I usually ask is “did you watch the proceeding?” If one watched the proceeding you can easily conclude that there is nothing wrong in it. Later, there were comments and opinions on the matter. But what needs to be taken into consideration is that did the President inaugurate the assembly? The answer is YES. Then, who and who ought to be there? The issue of the Clerk being the person to conduct same was not disputed. The quorum to be formed was not an issue. It is nobody's business if a senator who ought to be at the floor of the Senate is not there. You were not there but you are complaining of not being done fairly, how would you raise such question? They are claiming that they were attending a meeting at the ICC, that meeting with due respect is illegal. To the best of my knowledge, quorum was formed and the proceeding therein was legal. There was another argument that only 2/3 of Senators can impeach the Senate President, hence, required numbers of senators to participate in the election should be 2/3 not 1/3; what is your own view? They are two different things. The rationale behind fixing 2/3 senators are required for impeachment was to ensure that impeachment will not be used irrationally. Impeachment of a Senate President or any office holder is a serious thing that one cannot take with levity. In fact, I'm seeing it that it would be hardly impossible for impeachment to even occur in the present National Assembly. In a situation where a political party does not have required 2/3 number of lawmakers; if at all there would be impeachment process, you will see a situation whereby anti-party activities would occur. If it is PDP routing for impeachment, there is no how you won't carry APC members along and vice versa. Can you share one of your funniest encounters with a client in the cause of your job? I have so many encounters but I can vividly remember where I publicly disowned my client in court. It was a divorced case, though I don't normally accept divorce briefs, but it happened during my early stages of practice. I had told my client that 'you don't need to say anything; I will do all the talking.' I quickly added that whenever the court asks her anything, she should not talk too much. When our case was called my client was asked whether she consented to the claim of the husband, but instead of my client to accept or deny liability, she started telling stories. Despite my interference, the woman kept on talking and at the end I was furious. The court also cautioned her but she didn't stop talking. In fact, the matter wanted to degenerate into state of contempt, but we pleaded with the court. At the end of the matter, I told her “I cannot cope with your case anymore, please take your file” and that was the end.