Between The Bench And The Bar, Who Knows It All?!

By Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

The #ENDSARS Movement/protest in Nigeria has really impacted negatively on the nation to such extent that it might really take a while to realize the negative impacts of such peaceful protest on Nigeria and the protest was alleged to have been hijacked by some hoodlums who used the opportunity of the protest to cause havoc, destruction and chaos in almost the entire parts of the nation and leading to some States of the Federation declaring curfew for some days while all economies are grounded, public properties burnt to ashes, some properties were also stolen and some of the citizens robbed by some of the hoodlums, gun shots, killings, maiming and body injuries sustained, police stations were burnt, even some courts were not spared in this chaos. Having considered all these atrocities, it is very unfortunately that some lawyers have gone to find some justifications supporting the burning of some courts in some States on the ground of alleged complicities of some Magistrates and or judges one way or the other with some police officers to defeat interest of justice which has made some of their clients (who are members of the societies) to have suffered injustice and or miscarriage of justice one way or the other! This clearly discloses to me that there is a gap between the Bar and the Bench, which must be resolved in the interest of justice. Much more, the courts of law are offices of both the Bench and the Bar.

The Bar are officers of courts. The Bench is the last hope of the common man. If we all allow our courts/offices to be burnt down, then, we are likely to be professionally annihilated, God forbid bad thing! It seems that the members of the public (and the common man) have lost some certain high level of trusts in the judicial system and or the legal processes one way or the other which must have probably occasioned the act of burning down some of those courts (the attitude which is totally rebukeable and unwarranted), though, this is really a bad omen for the Nigeria’s judiciary! Therefore, there is indeed the need for us all as the Bench and the Bar to come back home by seeing ourselves as one in the judicial process/justice system, so that we can rekindle the lost hope and trust that the public have lost in our courts of law. There are occasions also that the bench, with due respect, sees itself as knowing all and that the Bar are just as mere servants and there were occasions where some of the members of the bench would speak rudely to some members of the bar. There have also been occasions where some members of the bench sees the bench as knowing all laws and procedures and the bar is rather a learner. Also, there have been occasions where some members of the bar would address the bench rudely and disrespectfully right in the open court to the dissatisfaction of the court. There have been occasions where some lawyers too (including Senior Advocates of Nigeria) with due respect, have a notion that ‘what does that judge or Magistrate know?!’. Or the notion that ‘when was he or she called to bar and appointed to the bench that he or she would be teaching me law and procedures or telling me what to do?! Some of these ugly occasions raise the ego and pride which caused the litigants to be those who suffered from the ugly relationship that exists between the Bench and the Bar, hence, the loss of trusts and hopes in the judiciary as the last hope of the common man! It is my humble view that it is indeed the high time for both the Bench and the Bar to put aside their grudges in the interest of justice and to come together as one for justice to reign and in the interest of justice! Therefore, this paper is of the firm view that neither the Bench and the Bar knows it all rather, the interest of justice should concern both parties to forgo egos and pride to allow justice to prevail and so as to prevent any annoyance from some aggrieved citizens.

First and foremost, the bench and the bar must work together to strengthen their relationships. The Bench must realize that only God Almighty knows it all and therefore, the bench must always accord due respect to the bar. The mode of addressing members of the bar must be cordial, respectful and humane. The bench must realize why it is established which is to adjudicate to do justice. The bench must avoid corruption and must be hardworking, diligent and passionate about the judicial office and must do its best that once a suit is filed in court, unnecessary delay is avoided. Now, the bench must realize that the public watches what it does and the result of every case or suits before it. Furthermore, the bench must not allow technicalities to defeat justice on the substance. For instance: the Supreme Court of Nigeria having held on this position by Per Tobi JSC in Omoju V FRN (2008) 7 (pt.1085) SC, 38 r. 8 at page 57, paras. D-G remarking thus ‘Courts of law have long moved away from the domain or terrain of doing technical justice. Technical justice, according to the legal colossus, is not justice, but a caricature of it. Caricatures are not the best presentations or representations, substantial justice is justice personified and is secreted in the elbows of cordial and fair jurisprudence with a human face and understanding’. Also, the Court of Appeal in the case of Amadu v Yantumaki (2011) 9 NWLR (part 1251) 161 C.A. (at page 182 para. C-D.) held thus ‘Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed. However, where strict compliance with the rules will lead to injustice, the rules should be abandoned in favour of doing substantial justice because the courts have shifted from technical justice. And this situation affects even area courts’. The Supreme Court of Nigeria, as the apex court in Nigeria, also affirms the shift of courts from technicalities to substantial justice in the case of Maritime Management Associates v National Maritime Authority (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1333) 506, SC at page 541, para. C-E; 553 para. G-H) thus ‘The Supreme Court is more interested in substance than technicalities that lead to injustice. Justice can only be done if the substance of the matter is carefully examined’. The same Supreme Court further held in the case of Offor v State (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1333) 421 SC at pages 446, para. E) thus ‘The law does not recognize technicalities as a replacement of substantial justice’.

Furthermore, the Bar must also be good ambassadors of the Ministers in the temple of justice. The Rules of Professional Conducts for Legal Practitioners, 2007-herein after referred to as the RPC- has provided for the most required professional conducts of a lawyer in his professional capacity thus in the following Rules: ‘1. A lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the course of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner. 30. A lawyer is an officer of the court and, accordingly, he shall not do any act or conduct himself in any manner that may obstruct, delay or adversely; affect the administration of justice. 31. (1) A lawyer shall always treat the Court with respect, dignity and honour (2) Where the lawyer has a proper ground for complaint against a judicial officer, he shall make his complaint to the appropriate authorities.; (3) A lawyer who fails comply with any undertaken given by him either personally or on behalf of client to a court is prima face guilty of professional misconduct. (4) Except where the opposing lawyer fails or refuses to attend and the Judge is advised of the circumstances, a lawyer shall not discuss a pending case with a Judge trying the case unless the opposing lawyer is present. (5) Except as provided by a rule or order of court, a lawyer shall not deliver to the Judge any; letter, memorandum, brief or other written communication without concurrently delivering a copy to the opposing lawyer. 32. (1) In appearing in his professional capacity before a Court or Tribunal, a lawyer shall not deal with the Court otherwise than candidly and fairly. (2) In presenting a matter to the court, a lawyer shall disclose (a) any legal authority in the jurisdiction known to him to be directly adverse to the position of his client and which is not disclosed by the opposing lawyer; (b) the identities of the clients he represents and of the persons who employed him unless such disclosure is privileged or irrelevant. (2) In appearing in his professional capacity before a court or tribunal, a lawyer shall not – (a) state or allude to any matter which he has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the case or that will not be supported by admissible evidence;(b) ask any question that he has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the matter and that is intended to degrade a witness or other person; (c) assert his personal knowledge of the facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or assert his personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, as to the credibility of a witness, as to the culpability of a civil litigant or as to the guilt of innocence of an accused, but he may argue, on his analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matters stated herein; (d) fail to comply with known local customs of courtesy or practice of the Bar or of a particular Tribunal without giving to the opposing lawyer adequate notice of his intention not to comply; (e) intentionally or habitually violate any established rule or procedure or of evidence; (f) knowingly misquote the content of a paper, the testimony of a witness, the language of the argument of the opposing counsel, or the language of a decision or a textbook; (g) with knowledge of its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled, or a statute that has been repealed with intent to mislead the Court or Tribunal; (h) in argument, assert as a fact that which has not been proved, or in those jurisdictions where a side has the opening and closing argument, to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding in his opening argument positions upon which his side intends to rely; (i) produce evidence which he knows the Court should reject; (j) promote a case which to his knowledge is false; or (k) in any other way do or perform any act which may obviously amount to an abuse of the process of the court, or which is dishonourable and unworthy of an officer of the law charged, as the lawyer, with the duty of aiding in the administration of justice. 33. A lawyer or law firm engaged in or associated with the prosecution or defence of a criminal matter, or associated with a civil action shall not, while litigation is anticipated or pending in the matter, make or participate in making any extra-judicial statement that is calculated to prejudice or interfere with, or is reasonably capable of prejudicing or interfering with, the fair trial of the matter or the judgment or sentence thereon. 34. A lawyer shall not do anything or conduct himself in such a way, as to give the impression, or allow the impression to be created, that his act or conduct is calculated to gain, or has the appearance of gaining special personal consideration of favour from a Judge. 35. A lawyer appearing before a judicial tribunal shall accord due respect to it and shall treat the tribunal with courtesy and dignity. 36. When in the courtroom, a lawyer shall – (a) be attired in a proper or dignified manner and shall not wear any apparel or ornament calculated to attract attention to himself. (b) conduct himself with decency and decorum, and observe the customs, conduct and code of behaviour of the court and custom of practice at the bar with respect to appearances, dress, manners and courtesy; (c) rise when addressing or being addressed by the Judge; (d) address his objections, requests, arguments, and observations to the Judge and shall not engage in the exchange of banter, personality display, arguments or controversy with the opposing lawyer; (e) not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a court or tribunal; and (f) not remain within the Bar or wear the lawyer’s robes when conducting a case in which he is a party or giving evidence.’.

Furthermore, the Nigerian Bar Association, the Muslim Lawyers’ Association and the Christian Lawyers Association have great roles to play in bringing the bench and bar together in unity. It is very unfortunately that some judges and or magistrates would lose their courts while some lawyers are likely to lose their businesses as a result of the hoodlums’ burning of some courts.

Finally, therefore, I humbly request most respectfully, both the Bench and the Bar to please put their ego, pride and grudges aside and be ready and passionate to come together as one in the justice system for justice and in the interest of justice and to restore back the seemingly lost hopes and trust by the public and if these are done, I strongly believe that we can all move this country progressively! Furthermore, the Nigerian Bar Association, the Muslim Lawyers’ Association and the Christian Lawyers Association have great roles to play in bringing the bench and bar together in unity.

Email: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com