THE BREACH: Where Did We Go Wrong???

I am a young lawyer passionate about the future of the legal profession wherein I have been called. I am caught up between writing this piece or letting it slide but the “mild drama”, as the media described it that played out on the 21st of April 2016, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal {hereinafter referred to as Tribunal} is like a burning coal that has been placed on my heart.

To make this article less lengthy, I would avoid going into the details of the event that played out, because the media has done justice on that. So I would just go straight to my analysis.

For the love of my profession and with deep, utmost and due respect to my Learned Seniors and the erudite Chairman of the Tribunal, I would however condemn some actions by both parties which if left to slide under the carpets, would bring disrepute to the noble legal profession.

It is a trite and settled principle of law that a Court or Tribunal, as the case may be must hear every application/ motion brought before it. This has been stated in litany of cases but I would mention just a few. In the case of ANWADIKE V. ESIMAI & ORS {2013} LPELR-21225{CA}, it was clearly stated that;

It is trite law that a court or Tribunal is duty bound to hear an application before it on its merit before delivering a ruling on it one way or the other. And a refusal of a court to hear a Motion is a breach of the right to fair hearing guaranteed under the constitution and an essence of the audi alterem partem rule of natural justice. – PER ABDUL-KADIR J.C.A. {PARA D-E}
The Court in the above mentioned case also made reference to the Supreme Court decision in case of MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR V. CHIEF SIMEON MONOKPO & ANOR {2003} 18 NWLR {PART 852}346.

It is the duty of a court to entertain and decide on the merit of any application brought before it by any part, notwithstanding the perceived strength or weakness of such an application. Thus, a Court of law or Tribunal has a legal duty under the Nigerian adjectival law to hear any court process, including a motion brought before it. The process may be downright stupid, unmeritorious or even an abuse of court process. the court must hear the party or parties and rule one way or the other. A judge, whether of a court of law or tribunal, has no jurisdiction to come to a conclusion by resorting to his own wisdom outside established due process, That a motion cannot be heard because it has no merit, that does not lie in the mouth of a judge in the adversarial system of justice…”

From the above, it is clear that the Chairman with all due respect, erred in law in refusing to hear the application of the Counsel. I hereby reproduce and make reference to the following provisions of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.
• Rule 1{1}: A judicial Officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.

• Rule 2: A judicial Officer should be true and faithful to the Constitution and to the Law, uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and law and should acquire and maintain professional competence.

• Rule 3: In Judicial proceedings, a Judicial Officer should maintain Order and decorum.

• Rule 4: A judicial Officer should be patient, dignified and courteous to accused persons and litigants, assessors, witnesses, legal practitioners and others with whom he has to deal in his official capacity and should demand similar conduct of legal practitioners, his staff and others under his direction and control.

• Rule 5{i}: A Judicial Officer should accord every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his legal representative full right to be heard according to law, and except as authorized law, neither initiate, encourage, nor consider exparte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.

Referring to a legal practitioner as a busy body and ordering the police to throw him out is very much out of place and inconsistent with the codes the Chairman of the Tribunal is enjoined to abide by and uphold.

With the above, no further explanation is needed to show the breach and where the Chairman went wrong. At this point, I humbly appeal and crave the indulgence of the National Judicial Council to take a cursory look at the conduct of the Chairman and address it accordingly, in order to preserve the integrity and dignity of the profession, especially for we the young ones.

Addressing the issue of whether Mr. Raphael Oluyede had the right to bring a motion before the court, not being a lead counsel. My take on this is that there is no rule or law that stipulates that he couldn’t {or maybe I am not aware of such rule}. The lead Counsel, Mr. Kanu Agabi{S.A.N.} was not present at the time when the Counsel sought to move the motion, thus that gave Mr. Raphael Oluyede the right to address the court on the motion. Further, the lead Counsel acknowledged the counsel as part of his team and that he was aware of the motion, so that ruled out the fact alleged by the prosecuting counsel that Mr. Kanu Agabi {S.A.N.} wasn’t aware of the motion.

On the other side of the coin, we have Mr. Raphael Oluyede, my humble opinion on the conduct of the Counsel is that he should have obeyed the Court Orders, sat down and probably petitioned the Chairman before the appropriate authority as provided by Rule 31{2} of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners {hereinafter referred to as R.P.C.} which provides that; “Where the lawyer has a proper ground for complaint against a Judicial Officer, he shall make his compliant to the appropriate authorities”.

He could also have obeyed the Order of the court, sat down and prepare to appeal the decision of the Chairman of the Tribunal not to hear his application.

His actions and reactions constituted great disrespect for the court.

Rule 30 and 31{1} of the R.P.C provides thus;

• 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.

The breach is clear and where the defence Counsel went wrong is clear. I further implore the Nigerian Bar Association to investigate the matter and prosecute the Counsel accordingly.

It is really sad and worrisome that the trial of the Senate President has been fraught with just too many legal gymnastics and several insinuations of it being a “witch-hunt”. My position on this has always been that this is a trial and not a conviction. The Senate President is innocent until proven guilty.

In concluding this legal opinion if it can be couched as thus, I want to respectfully implore and remind all legal practitioners that we have been called into a noble profession and we should therefore always be conscious of this both in and out of Court. Let the meaning of the word “noble” as; “Having high moral qualities, Impressive in appearance, Having or showing or indicative of high or elevated character…” reflect in our lives as legal practitioners.
In the words Christopher Alexander Sapara-Williams,
“The Legal Practitioner lives for the direction of his people and for the advancement of the cause of his country.”
I BESEECH ALL LEGAL PRACTITIONERS THEREFORE BY THE MERCIES OF GOD, LET US BE TRUE TO THE PROFESSION WHEREIN WE HAVE BEEN CALLED. LET US PRESERVE THE DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW IN NIGERIA. LET US ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF OUR COUNTRY AND BE THE LIGHT AND GUIDE TO LAYMEN.

MY NAME IS UCHEAKOLAM M. ADIM AND I AM YOUNG LAWYER, PASSIONATE ABOUT PRESERVING THE DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION WHEREIN I HAVE BEEN CALLED.