By Dr. Michael Tidi

The legal profession in Nigeria is confronted with a significant ethical dilemma, exacerbated by declining professional standards and a troubling inclination among certain members of the Bar to prioritize media sensationalism over legal propriety. The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, recently expressed grave concern over the erosion of ethical values within the profession. Among the most egregious ethical infractions is the increasing tendency of some legal practitioners to make prejudicial public statements on pending judicial proceedings in blatant disregard of the sub judice rule.

As a legal practitioner, I find this practice not only unprofessional but outrightly injurious to the administration of justice. The tendency of lawyers to offer premature legal analyses on television or social media—often for self-promotion rather than in the interest of justice—undermines the very foundation upon which our judicial system is built. This behavior contravenes the fundamental principle of sub judice, which prohibits public commentary that could prejudice ongoing proceedings.

Yours truly did not return to the university and subsequently to the Nigerian Law School after earning a PhD in Energy Studies from the premier University of Ibadan merely for academic pursuit. Rather, I was drawn by the nobility, discipline, and high ethical standards that the legal profession was known for. However, the actions of some within the profession, particularly learned seniors whom I once regarded as authorities, leave much to be desired.

The principle of sub judice is a well-established doctrine that prohibits public commentary likely to prejudice ongoing litigation. This rule is not merely a matter of professional courtesy but a safeguard designed to ensure that judicial proceedings remain untainted by external pressures. Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) guarantees every citizen the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court of competent jurisdiction. When lawyers take to the media to advance arguments on matters pending before the courts, they risk undermining this constitutional guarantee, thereby endangering the very foundation of justice.

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007, explicitly proscribe such conduct. Rule 33(1) provides:

“A lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate to the public or to the press the lawyer’s opinion on any matter still pending before a court in a manner likely to prejudice the fair trial of the case or its judgment.”

This principle aligns with international best practices. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 in the United Kingdom, for instance, criminalizes acts that pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active legal proceedings. Similarly, Rule 3.6 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits attorneys from making extrajudicial statements that could materially affect an adjudicative process.

Judicial pronouncements in Nigeria have consistently reaffirmed the sanctity of the sub judice rule. In Tony Momoh v. Senate of the National Assembly (1981) 1 NCLR 105, the court underscored that judicial proceedings must be insulated from extraneous influences, particularly media narratives. Likewise, in Dairo v. Union Bank of Nigeria (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 99, the Supreme Court reinforced the inviolability of judicial independence, emphasizing that justice must be administered strictly in accordance with legal principles, devoid of public pressure.

The ramifications of media trials extend beyond ethical breaches; they pose a direct threat to the integrity of the judiciary. When legal practitioners abandon the courtroom in favor of television studios and social media platforms, they erode public confidence in the judicial process and expose adjudicators to undue influence. The legal profession is not a marketplace for populist advocacy but a solemn vocation requiring the highest ethical standards.

Lord Denning MR, one of England’s most revered jurists, issued a stern warning against undue interference in judicial proceedings. In R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No. 2) [1968] 2 QB 150, he stated:

“Let me say at once that we will never interfere with the due administration of justice. We must be vigilant to see that the courts are not misled by statements made outside their precincts. We must be careful to ensure that justice is not derailed by public pressure.”

This admonition remains profoundly relevant today, as some Nigerian lawyers have transformed from legal advocates into media personalities. Rather than uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings, they seek to shape public narratives to their advantage, often at the expense of judicial independence. The courts must remain impervious to orchestrated pressures, and legal practitioners must resist the temptation to litigate in the court of public opinion rather than in the courtroom.

Equally disconcerting is the rising trend of legal practitioners counseling clients to disregard court judgments. A recent example is the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the political crisis in Rivers State, where erroneous legal advice led to a constitutional impasse necessitating executive intervention. It is an elementary principle of law that the decisions of the Supreme Court are final and binding. Section 235 of the 1999 Constitution unequivocally affirms this finality. Justice Chukwudifo Oputa, in the seminal case of Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, eloquently stated:

“We are final not because we are infallible; rather, we are infallible because we are final.”

It follows, therefore, that any legal practitioner who advises a client to flout a Supreme Court judgment is guilty of professional misconduct and should be subject to disciplinary action. Judicial pronouncements must not be treated as advisory opinions; they carry the full force of law and must be obeyed.

The Body of Benchers, as the apex institution overseeing legal ethics, must take decisive action against legal practitioners who engage in media trials or encourage judicial disobedience. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee must rigorously enforce sanctions, including suspension and disbarment, where necessary. The Nigerian Bar Association must also intensify its disciplinary oversight and reinforce ethical education among its members. Judicial officers, for their part, must assert their authority in protecting the integrity of court proceedings, employing contempt proceedings where necessary to deter errant conduct.

The legal profession is not an avenue for political theatrics or media grandstanding. It is a discipline bound by the strictest ethical and professional standards. The growing practice of litigating cases in the media rather than in the courts is an affront to justice and must be firmly resisted. If left unchecked, it threatens to erode public trust in the judiciary and weaken the rule of law.

Now, more than ever, all stakeholders in the legal profession must reaffirm their commitment to ethical values. The courts must remain sanctuaries of justice, untainted by external pressures. Lawyers, as officers of the court, must uphold the law with unwavering integrity. The future of the profession and indeed the credibility of our judicial system depends on it.

Dr. Tidi is the Principal Partner at M.E. Tidi Legal & Consultancy Services. He writes from Abuja via [email protected].