The Role of High-Quality Legal Representation

 More people are still suing Dele Farotimi - I reflected on the situation once again with empirical data and insights, honestly with great respect for his works, he made some great mistakes - the lens he used in viewing the legal system in Nigeria, is not totally correct.

• How do you think Donald Trump survived most of his legal challenges?

• Is hiring quality legal teams a major factor that can influence both legal and judicial outcomes?

Understanding how global judicial systems work is key, especially in societies where high-quality legal representation plays a critical role in shaping legal outcomes.

Let me break it down further to illustrate why the argument holds weight:

1. The Role of High-Quality Legal Representation

• Duty to the Client: Lawyers have an ethical and professional obligation to zealously defend their clients within the bounds of the law, regardless of public opinion or societal expectations.

• Innocent Until Proven Guilty: This cornerstone of legal systems means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. High-quality legal teams excel at challenging this burden, leveraging the presumption of innocence to secure favorable outcomes.

2. Public Perception vs. Legal Realities

• Public Perception Can Be Misguided: The public often forms opinions based on incomplete or biased information. When legal outcomes contradict these perceptions, it doesn’t necessarily indicate systemic corruption but may reflect the effectiveness of skilled legal representation.

• Prejudice and Expectation Bias: It’s common for high-profile cases to carry an expectation of guilt or innocence before a trial concludes. If the outcome doesn’t align with this bias, the judicial system is often blamed unfairly.

3. Judicial Systems and Flaws

• Flaws Exist in Every System: All judicial systems, including Nigeria’s, have imperfections—such as delays, underfunding, or susceptibility to corruption. However, these flaws do not negate the importance of competent legal representation in influencing outcomes.

• Outcomes Can Be Legally Sound Despite Flaws: Even in flawed systems, skilled legal teams can navigate within the law to achieve outcomes that are procedurally and legally correct, though they may appear unfavorable to the public.

4. Dele Farotimi’s Lens: Flawed or Oversimplified?

• Overgeneralization: If Farotimi attributes unfavorable or controversial outcomes solely to systemic corruption, without considering the role of skilled legal teams, his critique lacks nuance.

• Correlation vs. Causation: While systemic flaws may exist, they are not always the sole or primary cause of unexpected outcomes. In many cases, the quality of legal representation and the adversarial nature of the legal process significantly shape results.

• Overlooking Legal Complexities: Farotimi’s critique may fail to account for how the adversarial system works: two parties present opposing cases, and the more prepared or skilled side often prevails, regardless of public sentiment.

5. Implications of my Argument

• Not All Unexpected Outcomes Are Flawed: Outcomes that contradict public expectations are not inherently unjust. They often reflect the strength of legal arguments and the ability of legal teams to navigate procedural rules.

• Systemic Issues Should Be Addressed Separately: While systemic flaws must be acknowledged and addressed, attributing every unexpected outcome to those flaws oversimplifies the reality of how justice is administered.

• Wealth and Resources Do Play a Role: While systemic inequities exist, blaming the system for outcomes that are influenced by disparities in resources and representation overlooks the legal team’s critical role.

Conclusion

It is wrong to blame the judicial system entirely for outcomes that deviate from public expectations, especially in cases where high-quality legal teams effectively represent their clients. While systemic flaws exist and should not be ignored, they do not fully explain or invalidate the influence of competent legal representation. A balanced critique of any judicial system should account for these nuances, recognizing that legal outcomes often hinge on the quality of advocacy within the framework of the law.

Aderogba Otunla, Ph.D.