By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

“The courtroom must remain a forum of law, not intimidation; of reason, not fear,” the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) cautioned in a strongly worded statement issued on March 26, 2026.

The NBA, the umbrella body for legal practitioners in the country, expressly warned judges against abusing their power by using contempt punishments to intimidate or bully lawyers.

The association cried out over shocking reports of judges not only bullying lawyers in courtrooms but also unlawfully ordering their detention.

The outcry was further fuelled by a judge’s directive that a lawyer appearing before him should kneel in front of the court.

According to the NBA, the first report of such an ugly incident emanated from proceedings in Suit No. PHC/301/2016: Mr. Bodiseowei Zidougha v. The Chief of Naval Staff & 2 Ors., before Justice Chinwendu Nwogu of the High Court of Rivers State.

It noted that the trial judge, after delivering judgment, convicted and ordered the detention of the lawyer representing the defendants.

“His Lordship purported to have convicted counsel for the Defendants (Chief of Naval Staff and the Nigerian Navy), Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin, of contempt of court for allegedly making false statements and imputations against the Court in a written address she filed in the matter.”

The NBA said it had also received a report of a summary order issued by Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on March 25, 2026, for the detention of Mr. Martin Anyanwu, a legal officer employed by the Federal Medical Center, Keffi in the court’s holding facility.

“There have been recent reports of lawyers being subjected to degrading and demeaning treatment in courtrooms, including being asked to kneel or stand facing the wall under threat of contempt.

“Such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession and erodes the mutual respect that must define the relationship between the Bench and the Bar.

“Indeed, resort to the exercise of power in these manners degrades lawyers and demeans the legal profession.

“These reports are not only frightening but appear to show an increasing intolerance and penchant for abusing judicial powers by some judges.

“These actions by the learned trial judges are not only unfair but exceedingly high-handed. We hereby deprecate them.

“The actions, as well as the procedures adopted by the judges, fly in the face of the rationale for punishment for contempt, which is to vindicate the dignity of the court and thereby protect the due administration of justice.

“The actions appear to have been taken rather to bolster the power and dignity of each of the judges as individuals.

“We wish to remind the judges that a judge’s invocation of his power to punish for contempt of his court is an unwarranted exhibition of naked judicial power, which puts counsel and their clients in fear of the court and erodes an important safeguard of fair trial,” the NBA added in the statement, jointly signed by its President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, and General Secretary, Dr. Mobolaji Ojibara.

These developments have further illuminated the growing distrust between the Bench and the Bar.
While the Bench points the finger at the Bar as primarily responsible for the perceived institutional rot in the judiciary, the Bar repeatedly alleges the existence of bad eggs on the Bench.

Furthermore, various administrative barriers have gagged judges from defending themselves when lawyers publicly lampoon them in the media, widening the rift.

The National Judicial Council (NJC) is the statutory body that defends and protects judges in the country.
The idea of judges forming unions was mooted in the past and promptly shot down.

Judges’ frustration over their inability to defend themselves when lawyers impugned their judgments in the court of public opinion found expression in an address by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, on December 15, 2025.

“I will not end this address without making a brief comment on the disturbing menace of incessant social media attacks on judicial Officers by some lawyers, including even senior ones.

“It is unfortunate that some senior lawyers, who should be exemplary in their practice of law, are involved in the obnoxious and ignoble conduct of launching baseless and unsubstantiated attacks on judges.

“Rather than applying their brilliance towards further development of the law, some have gladly settled for talking and acting as touts for politicians.

“Something drastic must be done to save the legal profession from such characters,” the CJ stated while flagging off the court’s 2025/2026 legal year and the 41st Annual Judges Conference.

At the same event, the NBA fired its own salvo, insisting that many anomalies in the judiciary could be cured by “appointment of the right calibre of persons as judges.”

“One of the deeply distressing frustrations endured daily by litigants, lawyers, and ordinary citizens is the unpredictability of court sittings.

“Every day, Nigerians rise before dawn, navigate long distances, brave insecurity on the highways, spend scarce resources on transportation, and appear in court hoping their matter will finally move forward – only to be met with the disheartening announcement that ‘the court is not sitting,’ ‘your case will not go on, so take a date,’ or even waiting for hours only for one’s matter to be adjourned off record.

“For many, this means wasted time, wasted resources, renewed anxiety about the progress of their case, or loss of confidence in the ability of the court to deliver timely justice,” the NBA fumed.

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who attended the high court’s event as a special guest, pleaded in her intervention that the success of the judiciary hinges on mutual understanding and cooperation between the Bar and the Bench.

“The Bench and the Bar remain partners in the administration of justice.

“A weak link on either side diminishes the system as a whole,” the CJN stated, her eyes roving between the elevated platform where the judges sat and the lower section of the room occupied by senior and junior lawyers.
Deprecating what it termed continued bullying of lawyers in courtrooms, the NBA demanded the immediate release of its detained member.

It said: “We must also remind judges that not every act of discourtesy to the Court by counsel amounts to contempt, nor any conduct which involves a breach by counsel of his duty to his client.

“Courts must distinguish between acts of discourtesy, incivility, uncouth behaviour, or rudeness.
“While these acts may be annoying, they are not necessarily acts of contempt of Court. Contempt must not be equated with conduct which will inevitably obstruct or disrupt the proceedings of the court or which is not to the liking of the judge.

“A distinction must be drawn between what may annoy a judge and what amounts to contempt. It is not a contempt of court to criticize 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.

“In our view, the power to punish for contempt was abused in these circumstances, as the remand orders appear to have been used to assuage the injured feelings of the presiding judge.

“It is not contempt of court when a judge does not agree with learned counsel’s method of advocacy or with the facts as narrated by counsel.

“A lawyer has a constitutional right of audience in court and should neither be intimidated nor detained for carrying out this duty. How a lawyer chooses to present his case is his own style.

“It would be unconstitutional and an abuse of office for a judge to abridge counsel’s right of audience by invoking his powers of contempt for carrying out this duty.

“As stated by Oputa, JSC, as he then was: ‘The test whether or not a judge takes himself too seriously or thinks too much of himself is in his attitude towards contempt of his court.’

“The administration of justice rests on a delicate but enduring partnership between the Bench and the Bar, one built not on fear but on mutual respect, restraint, and a shared commitment to the rule of law.
“The judge presides with authority; the lawyer appears with courage. Each is indispensable, and neither is subordinate to the other in dignity.

“These incidents across our courts reveal a troubling departure from this balance, one that threatens to erode the very foundation of justice.

“When judicial authority is exercised in a manner that intimidates, humiliates, or suppresses counsel, the courtroom ceases to be a temple of justice and risks becoming a theatre of fear.

“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.

“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 where a court believes that counsel has misrepresented facts in an affidavit, written address, or any process filed before it, the appropriate step is to refer the matter to the LPDC for investigation and possible disciplinary action.

“Summary remand in such circumstances is disproportionate and amounts to a denial of fair hearing.
“The power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary jurisdiction that must be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases where the administration of justice is under immediate threat.

“The judge, by virtue of office, is the more powerful actor in the courtroom.

“The use of contempt powers in circumstances that do not clearly amount to obstruction of justice creates an atmosphere of intimidation and amounts to judicial bullying.

“The contempt jurisdiction exists to protect the court, not to silence counsel or penalise advocacy undertaken in the discharge of professional duty,” the NBA stated.

As part of its demands, the legal body asked the Chief Judge of Rivers State to immediately investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident that led to the detention of the lawyer on a judge’s orders and to take appropriate administrative action.

It further demanded that appropriate disciplinary steps be taken by the National Judicial Council where necessary; that the remand of Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin under these circumstances be condemned and set aside; and that all NBA branches in Port Harcourt and its environs, and all legal practitioners, boycott proceedings before the court of Hon. Justice Nwogu for seven days if Mrs. Lovinah is not released within 24 hours.

The NBA also directed its Human Rights Institute to monitor the situation immediately, liaise with relevant authorities, and take all necessary steps to ensure the prompt release of their colleague and the protection of her fundamental rights.

“We will also engage the National Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to address the emerging pattern of judicial overreach, reinforce standards of judicial temperament, and strengthen the institutional relationship between the Bench and the Bar.

“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,” the NBA’s statement further read.

Notwithstanding the NBA’s spirited fight, among those who believe the association has not done enough to protect lawyers is frontline activist and former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore.

Sowore, who himself was reprimanded by the NBA for addressing the media inside a courtroom, commended the association, which he said “has finally woken up to the reality that judges have been abusing lawyers.”

Insisting that the problem goes beyond the bench, Sowore implored the NBA to act beyond issuing press statements.

He said: “Nigeria Police Force officers routinely slap lawyers, harass them, and bundle them out of interrogation rooms like common criminals.

“The DSS blocks lawyers from accessing their clients, undermining the very foundation of legal representation.

“In several instances, DSS operatives have even hijacked court premises, turning judicial gatehouses into screening checkpoints where lawyers are intimidated and maltreated.

“So beyond issuing press statements and selective outrage, what exactly is the NBA prepared to do?” Sowore queried.

Even though the judicial authorities have yet to formally respond to the NBA’s statement, the protest has reignited debate on judicial temperament, the proper exercise of contempt powers, and the balance between maintaining courtroom decorum and safeguarding lawyers’ rights to effectively represent their clients.