*Demands NJC Investigation Into Growing Pattern Of Judicial Bullying
The Nigerian Bar Association has issued an unprecedented ultimatum to a Rivers State High Court judge, directing all NBA branches in Port Harcourt and its environs and all legal practitioners to boycott proceedings before the court of Justice Chinwendu Nwogu for seven days if a detained lawyer is not released within 24 hours — as the Association condemned what it described as a frightening and increasing pattern of judges bullying lawyers and abusing the power to punish for contempt as a tool for intimidation.
In a strongly worded statement signed by NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe SAN and General Secretary Dr. Mobolaji Ojibara, the NBA identified two separate incidents involving the detention of lawyers by judges — one in Port Harcourt and one in Abuja — and issued a comprehensive set of demands including the immediate release of the affected counsel, investigation by the Chief Judge of Rivers State, disciplinary action by the National Judicial Council, and a directive to the NBA Human Rights Institute to monitor the situation and take all necessary steps.
The NBA disclosed that in proceedings in Suit No. PHC/301/2016, Mr. Bodiseowei Zidougha v. The Chief of Naval Staff & 2 Ors, Justice Chinwendu Nwogu of the High Court of Rivers State convicted and ordered the detention of the defendants’ counsel after delivering judgment in the matter.
The judge purported to have convicted Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin — counsel for the Chief of Naval Staff and the Nigerian Navy — 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 described the conviction and detention as not only unfair but “exceedingly high-handed,” noting that the judge convicted the lawyer for the content of a written address — a legal document filed as part of the advocacy process.
“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 NBA stated.
The second incident involved Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who summarily ordered the detention of Martin Anyanwu, a legal officer employed by the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi, in the court’s holding facility on March 25, 2026.
The NBA did not provide full details of the circumstances leading to Anyanwu’s detention but included it alongside the Rivers State incident as evidence of a troubling pattern of judicial overreach.
The NBA expressed alarm at what it described as an emerging pattern of judicial conduct that threatens the independence of the legal profession and the administration of justice.
“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,” the NBA stated.
“These reports are not only frightening but appear to show an increasing intolerance and penchant for abusing judicial powers by some judges,” the Association added.
The reference to lawyers being asked to kneel connects this statement to the earlier incident involving Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who ordered Sowore’s lawyer Marshall Abubakar to kneel in open court — an incident that drew condemnation from the NBA, the Uganda Law Society, and lawyers across Nigeria and Africa.
The NBA laid down a detailed legal framework for when the power to punish for contempt is properly exercised and when it is abused.
“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,” the NBA stated.
The Association drew a critical distinction between conduct that genuinely obstructs justice and conduct that merely annoys a judge.
“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,” the NBA stated.
The Association noted that it is not contempt to criticise the conduct of a judge, even if such criticism is strongly worded, provided the criticism is fair, temperate, and made in good faith.
The NBA was pointed in its assessment of the judges’ motives in both cases.
“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,” the NBA stated.
“The actions appear to have been taken rather to bolster the power and dignity of each of the Judges as an individual,” the statement added.
The Association invoked the celebrated words of Justice Chukwudifu Oputa JSC: “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 NBA emphasised that a lawyer’s right to present a client’s case is constitutionally protected and cannot be curtailed through the threat of contempt.
“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,” the NBA declared.
In its most powerful passage, the NBA warned that the emerging pattern of judicial overreach is transforming courtrooms from temples of justice into theatres of fear.
“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,” the NBA stated.
“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,” the Association warned.
The NBA issued five specific demands:
First, the immediate release of the affected counsel in both cases.
Second, that the Chief Judge of Rivers State immediately investigate the circumstances surrounding the Port Harcourt incident and take appropriate administrative action.
Third, that appropriate disciplinary steps be taken by the National Judicial Council where necessary.
Fourth, that the remand of Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin be condemned and set aside.
Fifth, that all NBA branches in Port Harcourt and its environs, and all legal practitioners, boycott proceedings before the court of Justice Nwogu for a period of seven days if Mrs. Lovinah is not released within 24 hours.
The NBA directed the NBA Human Rights Institute to monitor the situation immediately, liaise with relevant authorities, and take all necessary steps to ensure the prompt release of the detained lawyer and the protection of her fundamental rights.
The Association also announced plans to 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.
