NBA Condemns Judicial Bullying, Warns Judges Against Misusing Contempt Powers
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has expressed profound shock and concern over alarming reports of judges bullying lawyers and unlawfully ordering their detention. NBA President Afam Osigwe (SAN) issued a strong statement, highlighting that such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession and erodes the essential mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar.
Recent Incidents of Judicial Overreach
Two specific cases have drawn the NBA's attention. The first involves proceedings in Suit No. PHC/301/2016, Mr. Bodiseowei Zidougha v. The Chief of Naval Staff & 2 Ors, before the High Court of Rivers State, presided over by Hon. Justice Chinwendu Nwogu. According to reports, after delivering judgment, the trial judge convicted and ordered the detention of the Defendants' counsel, Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin, for alleged contempt of court. This was based on claims that she made false statements in a written address filed in the matter.
The second report concerns Honourable Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who on March 25, 2026, summarily ordered the detention of Martin Anyanwu, a legal officer employed by the Federal Medical Centre in Keffi, in the court's holding facility. These incidents are part of a broader pattern, with recent reports indicating that lawyers have been subjected to degrading treatment in courtrooms, such as being forced to kneel or stand facing walls under threat of contempt.
NBA's Strong Condemnation and Legal Analysis
In its statement, the NBA described these actions as not only frightening but also indicative of an increasing intolerance and abuse of judicial power by some judges. The association emphasized that such conduct is unfair and high-handed, deviating from the proper rationale for contempt punishment, which is to vindicate the dignity of the court and protect the administration of justice, rather than bolster a judge's personal power.
The NBA reminded judges that invoking contempt powers in an unwarranted manner puts counsel and their clients in fear, eroding safeguards for fair trials. It stressed that not every act of discourtesy by counsel amounts to contempt, and courts must distinguish between annoying behavior and genuine obstruction of proceedings. The association quoted Oputa, JSC, noting that a judge's attitude towards contempt reflects whether they take themselves too seriously.
Furthermore, the NBA argued that lawyers have a constitutional right of audience in court and should not be intimidated or detained for carrying out their duties. It stated that criticism of a judge or court, if fair and made in good faith, does not constitute contempt. The power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly and only when the administration of justice is under immediate threat, not to silence advocacy or penalize professional duty.
Demands and Actions by the NBA
In response to these incidents, the NBA has issued several demands:
- The immediate release of the affected counsel.
- An investigation by the Honourable Chief Judge of Rivers State into the circumstances and appropriate administrative action.
- Disciplinary steps by the National Judicial Council where necessary.
- Condemnation and setting aside of Mrs. Lovinah's remand.
- A seven-day boycott of proceedings before Hon. Justice Nwogu's court by NBA branches in Port Harcourt and all legal practitioners if Mrs. Lovinah is not released within 24 hours.
The NBA has directed its Human Rights Institute to monitor the situation, liaise with relevant authorities, and ensure the prompt release of the detained colleague and protection of her fundamental rights. Additionally, the association plans to engage with the National Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to address judicial overreach, reinforce standards of judicial temperament, and strengthen the relationship between the Bench and the Bar.
The NBA concluded by asserting that courtrooms must remain forums of law and reason, not intimidation and fear. It emphasized that judicial authority is best preserved through fairness, restraint, and fidelity to the rule of law, calling for an end to practices that degrade the legal profession and threaten justice.
