Before the coming into being of the 1999 Constitution, was the 1979 Constitution which has similar provisions with that of the 1999 Constitution. The 1979 Constitution also provided for a Code of Conduct for public officers as it is with the current constitution. According to the Code: “A public officer shall not engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade but nothing in this sub-paragraph shall apply to any public officer who is not employed on full time basis”(See part 1 Paragraph 2 (b) of the 5th Schedule to the 1979 Constitution as amended) The above provision was brought up for interpretation in the case of Akinwunmi v. Dietespif (1982) 3 NCLR 342. In this case the court was of the opinion that law lecturers in public institutions are prohibited from representing a client in court as counsel. The 1979 Constitution by extension speaks of not just of a profession, but trade and business with an exception only of a servant who is working on part time basis. Soon however, the 1979 Constitution was suspended; relevant provisions at least. Following this was the Regulated and Other Professions (Private Practice Prohibition) Decree 34 of 1984. The promulgation after the fallout of the 1979 constitution resurrected the controversy. The Decree provided that no public officer shall, as from the commencement of the Act engage in, or continue to engage in private practice or in connection with any scheduled profession. The ban was a total one on pubic officers from engaging in private practice. Thus Law lecturers were completely banned or prohibited from engaging in private practice except as provided in the decree. One of such exceptions is pro bono services to be rendered to members of his or her family, charitable organization or professional association the person is said to belong to. Private professional activities of a legal practitioner who is a public officer were regulated by the law known as the Regulated and Other Professions (Private Practice Prohibition) Act, CAP 390 Laws of the Federation, 1990. The law was to the effect that a Legal practitioner employed as a public officer should not for money’s worth or any other valuable consideration, render to any other person, other than his employer, any service which was related to his profession. – Section 1 (3) of the Law provides to the effect that nothing in the Act was to be construed as preventing a legal practitioner who was a public officer from rendering professional services to himself, to any other in emergency or to any person designated by the government to receive such service. He may also without charging or receiving payment from them render such professional service to a member of his family, his professional association, any charitable organization or any other person on purely humanitarian grounds, provided however that such professional service was given by the legal practitioner at a period otherwise than during the course of his normal duties, unless the government authorized the rendering of such service. The applicability of the applicable Laws covered even Law lecturers in Public Academic Institutions. This led to a protest, and as a result in 1992, Law lecturers were exempted. This was made possible by The Regulated and Other Professions (Private practice prohibition) (Law lecturers Exemption) Order 1992. However, at the coming into being of our current democracy symbolized by the 1999 Constitution, these laws are now repealed and regulated by the 1999 Constitution. The 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution now provides for the Code of Conduct for public officers. Section 2 (b) of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution states a public officer shall not without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing paragraph, except where he is not employed on full-time basis engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade, but nothing in the sub-paragraph shall prevent a public officer from engaging in farming. In the case of Akinwunmi v. DieteSpif, cited above, the court held that a legal practitioner who was a public officer cannot represent someone in a litigation in court. However, it should be worthy of note that these decisions deal with the 1979 Constitution and not the 1999 Constitution. The current decision of the court dealing with the subject matter is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed v. Ahmed SC. 279/2012 delivered on the 12th day of July, 2013. In this case, a Nigerian Law School lecturer filled some processes in court appealing the decision of a lower court on behalf of a client. The processes were objected to on the ground that they were filed by a public officer prohibited by the Code of Conduct to engage in private practice — The court though concluded that the learned lecturer remains a public officer in line with the definition in the relevant laws, stated that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain such matter as it is a matter to be tried by the Code of Conduct Tribunal as a court of first instance with respect to any matter dealing with a breach of the code. By this, the Supreme refused the opportunity to decide on the matter once and for all. Looking at the provision of the Code of Conduct stated above, it is worth noting that the keywords are: “Management or Running of any private business, profession or trade”. In other words, what is prohibited is the management or running of any of the items listed above and not necessarily, engaging in them as stated in previous laws. So, what amounts to management? The Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary, International Edition defines management at page 902 as the act of running and controlling a business or similar organization. The definition so given shows that management and running are synonymous and could be settled to mean one and the same thing. Following this, there seems not to be anything wrong in a law lecturer engaging in private practice, in so far as the said practitioner is not managing the system, as engaging is simply general in scope and not specific as it is with ‘management’. Therefore, until a superior court gives a judicial interpretation to what amounts to management or running a private business, profession or trade, it is submitted that Law lecturers who are public servants can handle matters in court, engage in business or even trade in so far as the said person is not managing the business, trade or profession. It should be also worthy of note that Rule 7 of the RPC which prohibits legal practitioners from engaging in business does prohibits to the extent that the legal practitioner is “personally engaged” in the business. (See Retirement Plan in Legal Practice by Ebi Robert on a discourse on the subject matter, as published by TheNigeriaLawyer) Ebi Robert Co-Editor, TheNigeriaLawyer]]>
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
A timely new publication, Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria, co-authored by Olumide Babalola and Uchenna Nnawuchi,📘Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria is now available on Amazon:https://a.co/d/8TmFZrd
______________________________________________________________________
Alexander Payne Co. Law Reports
Contact & Orders 📞 0704 444 4777 | 0704 444 4999 | 0818 199 9888 🌐 www.alexandernigeria.com
______________________________________________________________________ Groundbreaking Guide For Lawyers: Adigwe Publishes ‘Artificial Intelligence For Lawyers’ With Free Research eBook
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
