Notable legal practitioner Afe Babalola has launched a defense against allegations made in Dele Farotimi's book "Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System," claiming the publication has irreparably damaged his hard-earned reputation.

At a press conference held at the Afe Babalola Bar Centre in Ado-Ekiti, Babalola, through his lead counsel Owoseni Ajayi, expressed deep concern over what he describes as defamatory remarks in Farotimi's publication.

"The assertions made in this book threaten to destroy what I have spent my entire life building," Babalola stated, emphasizing that the damage goes beyond monetary compensation.

The legal luminary has taken formal action, submitting a petition to the Ekiti State Police Commissioner requesting intervention. The petition calls for:

- Farotimi to provide proof of the truthfulness of his publications

- Potential prosecution for criminal defamation

- Confiscation of allegedly defamatory publications pending investigation

- Preventing further publication of content that attacks Babalola's reputation

Drawing on a traditional Yoruba proverb, Babalola highlighted the importance of hearing both sides of a story, stating, "Anyone who judges by the report of just one party is the most wicked."

The dispute stems from Farotimi's book, which Babalola claims contains misleading and damaging statements. He argues that while free speech is fundamental, it should not come at the cost of deliberately injuring another's reputation.

Challenging the Nigerian Bar Association's (NBA) position on the matter, Babalola cited the legal precedent of Aviomoh v C.O.P. (2022), asserting that defamation can be both a civil tort and a criminal offense.

"Is it wrong for me to seek justice against these false utterances?" Babalola questioned, challenging those who might view his legal action as an attempt to silence criticism.

The press conference serves as a defense mechanism, with Babalola urging the public to verify facts and not rush to judgment based on one-sided narratives.

As the legal battle unfolds, the case raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech, professional reputation, and the legal recourse available when those boundaries are allegedly crossed.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​