Nigerian Bar Association Denounces Judicial Intimidation and Abuse of Contempt Powers
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has issued a strong condemnation of what it describes as a growing trend of judicial misconduct, specifically highlighting instances where judges are allegedly bullying legal practitioners and wielding contempt powers in an intimidating manner. The association has received disturbing reports of lawyers being unlawfully detained by judges in separate incidents, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the justice system.
In a formal statement, the NBA President, Afam Osigwe (SAN), and General Secretary, Mobolaji Ojibara, detailed these concerns, emphasizing that such actions not only undermine the legal profession but also pose a direct threat to the fair administration of justice.
Allegations of Judicial Misconduct:
The NBA has brought forth specific cases to illustrate its grave concerns:
Rivers State High Court Incident: Proceedings in Suit No. PHC/301/2016, involving Mr. Bodiseowei Zidougha v. The Chief of Naval Staff & 2 Ors, before Justice Chinwendu Nwogu of the Rivers State High Court, have come under scrutiny. It is alleged that after delivering judgment, the court ordered the detention of the defence counsel, identified as Mrs. Lovinah Benjamin. The basis for this detention was reportedly a conviction for contempt of court, stemming from alleged false statements made in a written address filed in the case.
Federal High Court, Abuja Incident: Another concerning event involves Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court, Abuja. Reports indicate that on March 25, 2026, a legal officer from the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi, Mr. Martin Anyanwu, was allegedly ordered to be detained in the court’s holding facility by the judge.
Pattern of Degrading Treatment:
Beyond these specific incidents, the NBA highlighted a broader pattern of degrading treatment faced by lawyers in courtrooms. These reported behaviours include lawyers being compelled to kneel or stand facing a wall under the threat of contempt charges. The association views these actions as indicative of an alarming increase in judicial intolerance and a penchant for abusing judicial authority by some judges.
The NBA stated, “These reports are not only frightening but appear to show an increasing intolerance and penchant for abusing judicial powers by some judges.” The association argues that such conduct is not only unfair but also demonstrably high-handed, fundamentally contradicting the purpose of contempt proceedings. The rationale behind contempt power, the NBA asserts, is to uphold the dignity of the court and safeguard the due administration of justice, not to intimidate or silence legal professionals.
Abuse of Contempt Powers:
The NBA issued a stern warning that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised judiciously and should not be weaponized to intimidate lawyers or stifle legitimate advocacy. The association emphasized that not every instance of discourtesy or disagreement constitutes contempt of court.
- “It is not a contempt of court to criticise the conduct of a judge or the conduct of a court, even if such criticism is strongly worded, provided that the criticism is fair, temperate, and made in good faith,” the statement clarified.
Proper Procedures for Professional Misconduct:
The NBA stressed that when a court deems a lawyer’s conduct to be improper, the correct and lawful procedure is to refer the matter to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for investigation and potential disciplinary action. Resorting to summary punishment in such circumstances is seen as a violation of due process and fair hearing.
- The association articulated, “While courts possess inherent powers to protect their authority and dignity, such powers must be exercised within the bounds of the law and in accordance with the principles of fair hearing and due process.”
- It further elaborated, “A legal practitioner is entitled to present a client’s case fearlessly and within the confines of the law. Where a court considers counsel’s conduct improper, the proper course is to invoke recognised disciplinary mechanisms, including referring counsel to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), rather than resorting to summary punitive measures.”
- Even in cases where a court believes a lawyer has misrepresented facts in an affidavit or other filings, the appropriate action is referral to the LPDC. Summary remand in such situations is considered disproportionate and a denial of fair hearing.
The NBA underscored that the power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary jurisdiction that should be invoked sparingly and only in clear-cut situations where the administration of justice faces immediate peril. The inherent power imbalance in the courtroom, with judges holding significant authority, means that using contempt powers for anything less than obstruction of justice can create an atmosphere of intimidation and amount to judicial bullying. The core purpose of contempt jurisdiction, the NBA reiterated, is to protect the court, not to silence counsel or penalize advocacy undertaken in the discharge of professional duties.
Demands and Future Actions:
In response to these grave allegations, the NBA has made specific demands:
- Immediate Release of Detained Counsel: The association is demanding the prompt release of the lawyers who have been allegedly and unlawfully detained.
- Investigation and Disciplinary Action: The NBA has called upon the Chief Judge of Rivers State to initiate an investigation into the incident involving Justice Nwogu. Furthermore, they have urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to consider appropriate disciplinary measures where warranted.
- Potential Boycott: The NBA has warned that its branches in Port Harcourt and surrounding areas may boycott all proceedings before Justice Nwogu’s court for a period of seven days if the detained lawyer is not released within 24 hours.
The NBA has also directed its Human Rights Institute to actively monitor the situation, liaise with relevant authorities, and undertake all necessary steps to secure the release of their colleague and protect her fundamental rights. The association intends to engage with the NJC and the National Judicial Institute to address this developing pattern of judicial overreach, reinforce standards of judicial temperament, and strengthen the professional relationship between the bench and the bar.
The NBA concluded with a powerful statement: “The courtroom must remain a forum of law, not intimidation; of reason, not fear. The authority of the court is best preserved through fairness, restraint, and fidelity to the rule of law.”
