By Caleb Oboagwina Esq.

A troubling scene recently played out in court, and it should concern every serious-minded observer of our justice system. In the course of proceedings, a defendant, apparently reacting to being corrected by a learned Silk, asked: “Is the court your parlour?” That statement may sound simple to some, but it carries a deeper and more disturbing implication. It reflects a growing decline in respect for the judiciary, a weakening of courtroom discipline, and an alarming casualness toward an institution that ought to command the highest regard.

At a time when public confidence in institutions is already under pressure, the courtroom should remain one of the last places where order, restraint, and dignity must never be compromised. That is why such a statement should not be dismissed as mere emotion or loose talk. It was inappropriate, disrespectful, and wholly inconsistent with the solemnity of judicial proceedings.

This moment also presents an opportunity to correct a common misconception. Many people use the words “court” and “courtroom” interchangeably, but they are not exactly the same. The courtroom is the physical hall where proceedings are held. The court, strictly speaking, refers to the judicial authority sitting through a judge or justice and formally presiding over a matter. Thus, before the judge takes his seat, one is in a courtroom. Once the judge is seated and proceedings commence, the court is in session.

This distinction is not mere semantics. It reminds us that the judicial environment is not an ordinary place. Whether the judge has taken his seat or not, the atmosphere of the courtroom is one that demands caution, discipline, and respect. It is not a place for street-level exchanges, emotional outbursts, or confrontational displays. Certainly, it is not a parlour.

The statement made by the defendant was particularly unfortunate because it was directed at a Senior Advocate who had called his attention to the need for propriety. That intervention ought to have been understood for what it was: a call to order. Instead, the response projected defiance where humility was required. The court is not a place for bravado. It is not a protest ground. It is not a theatre for performance. It is the arena where the law speaks with authority over the lives, rights, and liberties of citizens.

The legal profession has always placed a premium on decorum because justice itself depends on order. Rule 36(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2023, admonishes lawyers not to engage in undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to a court or tribunal. That rule captures an enduring principle: no lawyer should, by words or conduct, reduce the dignity of judicial proceedings. Rule 33 of the same Rules also warns against trial publicity by lawyers or law firms engaged in a matter. The justice process is not meant to be turned into a media spectacle or public drama.

Even more importantly, counsel has a responsibility beyond mere representation. A lawyer is not just an advocate for a client; he is also an officer of the court. Where a client behaves in a manner that disrespects the judicial process, counsel has a duty to caution, restrain, and properly guide that client. The courtroom must never be allowed to descend into the culture of alluta or open defiance. Advocacy is not disorder, and representation is not licence for misconduct.

What makes incidents like this dangerous is not just the singular act itself, but the message it sends. Every act of indiscipline in court chips away at public confidence in the administration of justice. Once the courtroom loses its dignity, the moral force of the court begins to weaken in the eyes of society. And once that happens, justice suffers.

We must therefore be deliberate in defending courtroom decorum. Litigants must understand where they are. Lawyers must maintain the nobility of the profession. The public must appreciate that judicial proceedings are serious matters. Respect for the court is not about worshipping the judge. It is about preserving the sanctity of justice.

The message must be clear and uncompromising: the court is not a parlour, and the courtroom is not a platform for insolence. The moment we begin to treat the temple of justice like a casual space for defiance, we begin to destroy the very institution we run to for protection.

And that is a price no society can afford to pay.

Caleb Oboagwina Esq. of EasyRead Services, wrote in from Lagos