Bar vs Bench: How undermining mutual respect hinders administration of justice

•As debate rages on judicial limits, contempt powers

Against the background of the recent disagreement between Justice Mohammed Umar and a legal practitioner, Marshall Abubakar, ADEOLA OJO in this report, explores sides to the raging debate; abuse of authority, mutual respect, restraint and due process in relation to judicial limits and contempt powers in view of previous cases of lawyers, sentenced for contempt by judges in cases they were handling.

The integrity of the justice system is basically anchored on the strength and efficiency of the collaboration between the Bar; that is legal practitioners and the Bench; the judicial officers; which are the two arms of the legal profession. These arms exist as coequal stakeholders in the administration of justice and are aptly described as “two sides of the same coin.

While the Bar advocates for the rights and liberties of citizens, the Bench ensures impartial interpretation and application of the law. According to experts, this interaction is not merely procedural or symbolic but also structural, forming the bedrock upon which the administration of justice rests

However, the relationship between the Bar and the Bench in Nigeria is characterized by a mix of collaboration and conflict usually exhibited in what is termed judicial bullying, where some judges are accused of bullying lawyers, using contempt powers inappropriately to intimidate them causing conflict and reigniting debates on the need for a more harmonious relationship between the Bar and the Bench, as an integral component for the effective functioning of Nigeria’s justice system where the Bar and Bench collaborate to effectively promote professional discipline and enhance justice delivery in Nigeria

One of such cases is the recent conflict between a judge, Justice Mohammed Umar of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, and a legal practitioner, Marshall Abubakar, where the judge reportedly ordered the lawyer to step out of the Bar and kneel after he raised his voice while addressing the court on the suitability of a hearing date. The judge was also said to have issued threats of committal for contempt.

The issue ignited a lot of outrage and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), took a public stance to condemn the alleged courtroom incident, emphasising that no judge can order a lawyer to kneel

NBA while expressing concern over the incident, described the development as troubling, noting that it has significant implications for the dignity of the legal profession and the sanctity of the courtroom.

“The courtroom is a temple of justice, governed by law, procedure, and decorum,” the association stated, adding that although judges are empowered to maintain order, such authority must be exercised within the limits of the law and established judicial standards.

The NBA further clarified that while courts possess the power to punish for contempt, such powers are regulated by clearly defined procedures designed to ensure fairness and uphold the rights and dignity of all parties involved.

“A judex directing a legal practitioner or indeed any person whatsoever to kneel in court is not a recognised judicial sanction under our laws and does not align with the standards of judicial conduct expected on the Bench,” NBA said, adding that the dignity of the court must be preserved not only in its decisions but also in the manner judicial authority is exercised.

It further urged that any perceived contempt should be handled through proper legal processes.

ALSO READ: Student stakeholders tour Ekiti projects, back Oyebanji’s re-election bid

“If a judge is of the view that a person has acted in a manner that is contemptuous of the court, the judge must follow the accepted way of conducting proceedings for such allegations,” it stated.

At the same time, the NBA reminded legal practitioners of their responsibility to maintain professionalism and respect in court. It noted that while lawyers are duty-bound to advocate vigorously for their clients, such advocacy must remain within the limits of decorum. The NBA President, called for calm and restraint, urging that any grievances arising from courtroom incidents be addressed through appropriate institutional and disciplinary mechanisms.

The incident however continues to generate debates highlighting the importance of mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench as a fundamental factor to the administration of justice especially in a courtroom which is tritely known as the temple of justice where activities must be solemn, orderly and governed by rules that protect all.

Overtime, issues bordering on professional misconduct and inefficiency as well as courtroom incivility have strained the relationship between the Bar and the Bench. There had been concerns about the efficiency of the judicial process and the behavior of lawyers in courtrooms, which can affect public trust. And on the other hand, many have raised issues of judges being overbearing to lawyers in the courtroom and allegations of judges vested with immense powers to control proceedings, interpret the law, and ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done, overstepping their bounds as provided by law.

This raises concern because judges naturally hold the responsibility of safeguarding the rights of all parties: the plaintiffs, defendants, and the public, by enforcing due process and preventing any abuse of the legal system; they also have authority to issue orders, grant remedies, and impose sanctions underscores their role as arbiters who maintain balance and fairness within the justice system strictly in line with the provisions.

But when it seems a judge has descended from this high pedestal to step into the arena where he attempts to order corporal and degrading punishment on a member of the Bar for perceived misconduct, it leads to controversy and diverse opinions.  That is why the recent issue between Justice Mohammed Umar and Barrister Marshall Abubakar, it becomes an issue of public discourse.

Penultimate week, Justice Umar, reportedly threatened to commit a lawyer, Marshall Abubakar who is the defence counsel to online publisher of Sahara Reporters, Omoyele Sowore, for contempt over alleged rudeness in court. The legal practitioner was said to have raised his voice while arguing a defamation case against his client, Sowore, who is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly making false claims against President Bola Tinubu, referring to him as “a criminal” in posts on his X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook accounts.

When asked by the judge when he intended to open his client’s defence, Abubakar reportedly stated that the defence would file a no-case submission and suggested an adjournment to July. An application which was objected by prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), who urged the court to adopt a day-to-day hearing schedule.

The judge had noted that the prosecution had been swift, the defence spent four days cross-examining the prosecution’s sole witness and had fixed April 13 for the adoption of final written addresses on the no-case submission. But Abubakar had expressed discomfort with the date and reiterated his preference for a July adjournment.

According to reports, Sowore, started addressing the court from the witness box on how the proposed date might affect his party’s primaries and his lawyer simultaneously addressed the judge, allegedly raising his voice.

This court belongs to all of us. This court is not for some people alone. It belongs to all of us,” Abubakar reportedly said.

Attempts by the judge to caution him were unsuccessful. At that point, Justice Umar was reported to have said: “If you shout in this court again, I will commit you for contempt. In fact, come here! Come and kneel down here!”

It took the intervention of Kehinde and other lawyers present in court, who pleaded for leniency, to de-escalate the situation. But this did not go down with the legal community as lawyers think the issue is not one to be glossed over as such shouldn’t be taken as mere treat.

There had been diverse cases of lawyers that were sentenced for contempt by judges:

Chief Magistrate Esther Edigin of the Kano State Chief Magistrate Court committed Adeyemi Candide-Johnson, a lawyer, to prison for contempt in December 1987.

Late Fola Akinrinsola, a lawyer, was convicted for contempt by the Anambra State Chief Judge over an article he wrote, which was published by Punch newspaper on May 13, 1979. The conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on 5 August 1980.

Human rights lawyer, Gani Fawehinmi was convicted for contempt and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment in 1990 by the then-acting Chief Judge of Lagos State, Ligali Ayorinde.

Also, Olu Onagoruwa, the then legal adviser of the Daily Times newspaper, wrote an article which was published in the newspaper on 18 May 1979. The then Chief Judge of Anambra State, Emmanuel Araka, committed him to Enugu prison for contempt. The judge felt the article was contemptuous of a pending case before him. The conviction was later quashed at the Court of Appeal on 5 February 1980.

Magistrate Ibrahim Muhammed of Wuse Zone 6, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in March 2021 committed a lawyer, Eburu Bath, to two months’ imprisonment for challenging him on the summary of a case before the court.

On July 28, 2022, the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Francesca Fabian-Obot, sentenced lawyer Inibehe Effiong to one month’s imprisonment for contempt of court, citing alleged “insolence and dishonourable conduct.”

The order arose from a libel suit filed by then-Governor Udom Emmanuel against Leo Ekpenyong. Effiong, who served as defence counsel, had asked the judge to recuse herself on grounds of alleged bias. He eventually served the term and regained his freedom.

The above are few of the lawyers

A look at what constitutes contempt

There are two recognised types of contempt of court. All forms of contempt share a common feature: they obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice. They are contempt in facie curiae and contempt ex facie curiae.

Contempt in facie curiae which means contempt in the face of the court is the one that comes up from conduct or statements made before the court during proceedings that are considered disrespectful or disruptive. This refers to acts that directly undermines the authority and dignity of the court and may be punished summarily. However, although the alleged contemn or must first be given an opportunity to show cause.

The second one, contempt ex facie curiae, that is, contempt that occurs outside the court which is characterized by attitudes involving disobedience to court orders. This form of contempt requires strict procedural compliance, including adherence to Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the Judgment Enforcement Rules.

The power of judges to punish for contempt, whether in facie or ex facie curiae, is inherent in the courts and essential for maintaining order and authority. The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) reinforce this framework. Section 31(1) mandates that lawyers treat the court with respect, dignity, and honour, while Section 35 requires courtesy and decorum in all appearances before judicial tribunals.

Where a lawyer is found to have acted disrespectfully or in disregard of the judicial process, the court may cite the lawyer for contempt; the punishment may be in the form of ordering the lawyer to step aside from the Bar and in some cases, imposing fines or imprisonment.

Aside the professional body of lawyers, many members of the Bar had reactions to the situation and had urged caution so that the power that the Bench has on contempt will not be abused. Indeed, long before now, late jurist and former Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Michael Edokpayi, in a paper titled “Is It Contempt of Court or Abuse of Judicial Power?” had warned against the misuse of contempt powers.

He argued that not every act that annoys a judge amount to contempt. He cautioned that the power to punish for contempt must not be used to assuage personal feelings, noting that counsel has a constitutional right of audience and discretion in how to present a case and emphasizing that there is a need to distinguish between irritation and genuine obstruction of justice.

“The question that must be asked is: does the act diminish the dignity of the court?” he said.

Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), described the incident between involving Justice Umar and Abubakar as deeply troubling and reflective of a broader concern within the justice system, emphasising that contempt proceedings are governed by procedural safeguards designed to protect the liberty and dignity of individuals, warning that bypassing these safeguards amounts to an abuse of judicial authority.

He called for stronger oversight by the National Judicial Council (NJC), more proactive engagement by the NBA, and improved judicial training on courtroom temperament and emotional intelligence.

“The courtroom is not merely a room where disputes are resolved; it is the most visible institutional expression of the rule of law.When what happens inside departs from law, procedure, and dignity, it sends a dangerous signal that authority is personal rather than institutional. Ordering a lawyer to kneel is not a recognised judicial sanction under Nigerian law,” he said.

A senior lawyer, Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, called for mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench. “If left unchecked, it threatens a systemic erosion of public confidence in the legal system, a consequence far more damaging than individual acts of misconduct.The legitimacy of the law ultimately rests on trust, and once that trust is compromised, the very foundation of civil society is endangered.It is therefore imperative, indeed urgent, that the custodians of the profession rise to this challenge,” he added.

According to experts, the breach of mutual respect between the Bar and Bench significantly impacts the integrity and functionality of the justice system by causing a degradation of professional conduct which makes lawyers to engage in public criticism of judges without proper engagement, consequently, undermining respect for the judiciary.

But the relationship between the Bar and Bench is crucial for maintaining civility and decorum, and any disrespect can erode trust in the legal profession and the judicial process. A lack of mutual respect can result in public attacks on judges, which can further damage the reputation of the legal system and its ability to deliver justice.

“Experts advocate that “it is essential for both the Bar and Bench to uphold their professional duties and maintain respectful interactions to ensure the effective administration of justice as the relationship between the Bar and Bench is vital for the functioning of the legal system, and any breach of mutual respect can have serious consequences.

But according to pundits, the Bar and Bench are two sides of the same coin that are bound by a common duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system and when the balance is threatened, the consequences extend beyond the individuals involved to the very credibility of the justice system.

They specifically warned against judicial overreach and professional misconduct from both sides of the legal system.