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^[1]

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^[1]