NBA slams Abuja Judge for ordering Sowore’s lawyer to kneel in court

The Nigerian Bar Association has criticised Mohammed Umar, a judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, over his reported directive asking a lawyer to kneel during court proceedings.

The incident involved Marshall Abubakar, counsel to activist Omoyele Sowore, who was allegedly instructed by the judge to kneel in court.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the NBA, through its president Afam Osigwe, described the directive as unacceptable and not recognised under Nigerian law.

The association stated that such an order does not qualify as a legitimate judicial sanction and falls short of the standards of conduct expected from judges on the bench.

According to the NBA, courtroom discipline must always align with established legal procedures and respect for the dignity of legal practitioners.

BACKGROUND

Sowore is currently standing trial on a two-count charge preferred against him by the Department of State Services (DSS).

The charge follows the activist’s August 25 post on X, in which he described Bola Tinubu as a “criminal” while reacting to the president’s remarks on corruption during a trip to Brazil.

Drama began at the resumed hearing on Monday after Akinlolu Kehinde, counsel to the DSS, closed his case after calling one witness.

When Abubakar was asked to open his defence after cross examination of the prosecution witness, he said the defendant would file a no-case submission and proposed that the court should adjourn to a date in July.

The proposed date was opposed by the DSS counsel and the trial judge.

NAN reports that while Sowore was addressing the judge from the witness box on how the proposed date might clash with the primaries of his party, African Action Congress (AAC), his lawyer was also making a submission on the same matter.

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

Displeased with the lawyer’s remarks, the judge warned that there will be consequences if he shouts in his court again.

“If you shout in this court again, I will commit you for contempt. In fact, come here! Come and kneel down here,” the judge said while pointing to a spot in front of the courtroom.

However, the prosecuting counsel begged the judge to forgive the lawyer. The case was thereafter adjourned to April 13.

‘THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IS WELL RECOGNISED’

Reacting to the incident, the NBA said the power vested on judges to maintain order and discipline in the court must be “exercised strictly within the bounds of the law and established judicial standards”.

The legal body said if a judge believes that a person has acted in a contemptuous manner in court, the acceptable way of conducting proceedings for such allegations must be followed.

“The courtroom is a temple of justice, governed by law, procedure, and decorum,” the statement reads.

“While judges are vested with the authority to maintain order and discipline in their courts, such authority must be exercised strictly within the bounds of the law and established judicial standards.

“The power to punish for contempt is well recognised; however, it is circumscribed by defined legal procedures designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, and respect for the rights and dignity of all persons appearing before the court.

“A judge 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.

“The dignity of the court must be preserved not only in outcome but also in process, and this includes the manner in which judicial authority is exercised.

“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.”

The NBA acknowledged that legal practitioners bear a responsibility to conduct themselves properly in court.

“We reiterate that legal practitioners bear a corresponding duty to conduct themselves with restraint, professionalism, and respect for the court at all times,” the statement added.

“While lawyers are entitled, indeed obligated, to advocate firmly and fearlessly on behalf of their clients, such advocacy must always be exercised within the bounds of courtesy and decorum.

“Disagreements with the court, no matter how strongly felt, must be expressed through proper legal channels and not in a manner that disrupts proceedings or undermines the authority of the court.”