The court is a hall, chamber, or place, where justice is administered. It is generally considered the last hope of the common man because of its sacredness in addressing dispute and misunderstanding. It can also be seen as a library of wisdom that gives interpretations to judgement, actions, ideas and settlement to misunderstandings.
A court is equally seen as any person or institution, often as a government institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law. In both common law and civil law legal systems, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all people have the ability to bring their claims before a court.
Similarly, the rights of those accused of a crime include the right to present a defence before a court.
It is also usual in the superior courts to have barristers, and attorneys or counsel, as assistants, though, often, courts consist of additional barristers, bailiffs, reporters, and perhaps a jury.
The lawyers give strong arguments laden with facts to drive home their points, perhaps to convince the court to do their bidding. It is also expected that these arguments are presented courageously, with profound respect to the judge who is at the centre of administering justice.
As stated earlier, the court room is a sacred place, and not a cinema hall or entertainment centre where lawyers joke unnecessarily, neither a place where spectators cheer up parties involved in cases. No doubts, the court can sometimes be dramatic, but in rare cases for comic relief. On the whole, the court should never be reduced to a war room for abusive languages.
I have been in court several times to witness cases and realized that the duties of a judge is much greater than those of lawyers who do their best to defend their clients.
A judge equally takes time to write down proceedings, and listens critically to arguments and counter arguments in court without missing any point. They take note of what is said and what is not said in order to arrive at a fair conclusion. Indeed, the task is enormous. They should be respected and addressed with reverence. Whoever provokes the Judge beyond control must not have had a fair knowledge about the huge tasks before judges.
Two months ago, The Nigerian Judicial Commission (NJC) replied a letter of complaint by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Branches in Akwa Ibom (comprising Uyo, Ikot Ekpene, Eket and Oron) against the Honourable Justice A. A. Okeke and Honourable Justice T. B. Adegoke of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Uyo Judicial Division, wherein the NBA used unprintable words against the honourable judges.
A part of the reply reads: ” And in the second paragraph, you described their Lordships in very unprintable words to wit: Persistent rudeness, discourtesy, high-handedness and disdainful treatment of lawyers… This is language that should never be used by any lawyer on a Judge, talk more by Officers of the Bar. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
You cannot complain of rudeness and discourtesy and yet exhibit the same traits.” That was the end of that petition.
The reply shows that it is legally corrupt and embarrassing for a lawyer to use abusive words and those considered insulting against the judge.
Taking a look at what happened in Akwa Ibom recently, it can be deduced that the same act condemned by the NJC is what Inibehe Effiong has been displaying in court against the Akwa Ibom state chief judge, pointing fingers at her and desecrating the hallowed court and the chief judge. Some people who are consistent in clapping for his insolence are still hailing him today.
But quite preposterous is the fact that these persons were not even in court and do not have access to the proceedings of that day, yet they have given vague judgement and called hell and brimstone. The best thing to do would have been to request for the proceedings of that day, but they based their comments and opinions on hearsay.
Truth is, if nothing is not done now, such despicable act would be a bad legacy and antecedence for upcoming lawyers, and other individuals in the society.
The sanctity of the court must be sustained by meting out disciplinary actions against erring lawyers to serve as a deterrent to others. This is needful if the court should continue to be the last hope of the common man. Society must support the legal system through avoiding biased opinions and comments against the court or its functionaries. Our actions and decisions today should not create disaster for posterity, hence, all must be guided accordingly.
