……. Prince Ikujunni Emmanuel
While it is admissible that individuals have right to freely express themselves on issues of public concern, one would have expected that a man who parades himself as a legal practitioner would, at the very least, be conversant with the simple, non-derogatory meaning of the word “overzealous elements.” But alas, in Mr. Femi Emmanuel Emodamori’s latest self-published epistle, what we are treated to is a breathless meltdown, laced with legal misadventure, emotional spasms, and a fundamental misapprehension of the term he so furiously takes offence at.
Let us be clear, describing someone as “overzealous,” for me, is not wholly an insult. It simply means someone is excessively eager, often to the point of lacking moderation or balance, exactly what Mr. Emodamori has demonstrated time and again with his courtroom crusades and inflammatory press releases. A more reflective person would have worn the term as a badge of activist passion, not foamed at the mouth as if it were a personal slur. But perhaps that speaks more to Mr. Emodamori’s insecurities than to the intention behind the words.
His public tirade is especially revealing, not of the law, but of a man gasping for relevance. If he had taken even a few moments to engage the contents of the Ondo State Attorney General’s carefully considered statement, he would have noted that the real issue at stake is not opposition to financial autonomy, but rather the legal clarity required to implement it responsibly and in accordance with the Constitution, the very same document Mr. Emodamori keeps quoting like a broken record but clearly fails to comprehend in context.
But if Emodamori, who quoted the Constitution so extensively, is to be taken seriously, then he should also be expected to have all the facts. Let him state, clearly and honestly, what stands credited to the Judicial, credit? In this age of debit? And what is credited to the government as its portion in the arms of government he so frequently mentions, if indeed the Constitution spells that out with the kind of precision he claims.
He claimed that his advocacy for judicial autonomy dates back to 2015, when he wrote to the then Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Remi Olatubora. However, he never mentioned how consistent he was with that advocacy or what discussions or correspondence he had over the following seven years with Adekola Olawoye, Esq., and Charles Titiloye, Esq., who both served as Attorneys General under the late Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, apart from seeking and enjoying their patronage. Does this mean his so-called advocacy is only proportional to where he stands at any given time? Or is it a confirmation that what he truly seeks is relevance through patronage? At one point, he was even the lawyer employed to spearhead the legal scheme aimed at removing Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa when he was Deputy Governor, the records are still there.
Isn’t it revealing that Emodamori always seems to fight only for his pocket rather than for the state? For a man who now brandishes constitutional provisions, it is ironic that he ignored the same Constitution that legitimised Aiyedatiwa’s succession as Deputy Governor. Yet, he accepted an assignment that eventually plunged the state into needless unrest. Must everyone patronise him?
In the final analysis, what Mr. Femi Emodamori has done with his latest tantrum is not to defend the Constitution, nor to advance the cause of judicial autonomy, but to throw a public fit in hopes of baiting relevance from controversy. His is a loud performance, not a legal argument , more courtroom cosplay than credible advocacy. It is one thing to speak truth to power; it is another to dress up personal vendettas and contradictions in the garb of public interest.
The people of Ondo State, and indeed, all well-meaning Nigerians, deserve a more elevated and sincere conversation around institutional reforms like judicial autonomy. They deserve advocates who are consistent, constructive, and credible, not those who flip positions based on proximity to power or the promise of personal gain. For all his noise, Mr. Emodamori has only succeeded in revealing his own contradictions and further eroding the little moral capital he once hoped to wield.
In the end, history will not remember how loud a man shouted, but how honest and principled he stood. Mr. Emodamori would do well to reflect on this before his next public epistle. Until then, we will continue to separate sound legal reasoning from empty legal theatre, no matter how elaborately staged.
Prince Ikujunni Emmanuel
Adekunle Ajasin University,
Akugba, Ondo State.