By J. Friday.
I read with pain but pity for the author of this article, the crass ignorance and utter show of stupidity displayed in the write up.
I wouldn’t have written anything on this because I don’t know how it would get to him (the author) but for record purposes, this becomes necessary.
Firstly, I am not sure if the alleged author and advocate is aware of the issue on ground. If he is, he would have known that the Hon.Chief judge is not an accounting officer of the state judiciary neither is he signatory to the account. What business has he with the expenditure?
Moreover, if there is any issue of breach of the financial regulations, the hon. Chief judge is not the person to be invited for questioning since he is not the accounting officer.
Secondly, if the pay masters of the self acclaimed ccorruption advocate feels because he was able to send the former CJN Onnoghen to the gallows he can do same to the Hon. Chief judge, then he should go back to the class and read his books. Every matter must be treated on its own merit. This reminds me of a case in the scriptures.
King Herod after beheading John the Baptist for telling him the truth about his atrocity concerning the killing of his brother Philip and inheriting his wife, he saw that it pleased they people of same mind with him so hw had Peter arrested and imprisoned waiting for execution. But that night the Angel of God came and rescued Peter. That Angel is still waiting at the gate to save the Hon. Chief judge.
Thirdly, the paymasters of the author had earlier invited the njc here to harass everyone. Yet they couldn’t and would never find anything incriminating with the Hon. Chief judge. If they could, they wouldn’t delve into an issue of union strike which has nothing to do with their assignment.
Finally, iI heard the author talking about “soft landing”. This term was used in the most despicable and unreasonable way. What is soft landing? You can only attribute that to a guilty person. As far as this matter is concerned, only the state government and legislatures are guilty for delving into a matter that is already before a competent court.
I therefore advice the so called advocate to look at where the real criminals are. Let them ask their client what he did with the bailout funds, the Paris club refunds and all allocations received since he assumed office that he cant pay salaries.
The real work of advocacy is to defend the defenceless and not to join the oppressor to further oppress the oppressed.
Most finally, the author should not assume the role of the courts by making categorical pronouncements. It’s childish and not good for a civilized society ours.