The Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, has condemned what it described as increasing cases of judges allegedly bullying lawyers and abusing contempt powers to intimidate legal practitioners.
In a statement signed by its President, Afam Osigwe, SAN, and General Secretary, Mobolaji Ojibara on Thursday, the association said it received reports of unlawful detention of lawyers by judges in separate incidents in Rivers State and Abuja. It warned that such actions threaten the administration of justice.
The NBA cited proceedings in Suit No. PHC/301/2016, Mr. Bodiseowei Zidougha v. The Chief of Naval Staff & 2 Ors, before the Rivers State High Court presided over by Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, where the court allegedly ordered the detention of defence counsel after delivering judgment.
According to the statement, the judge convicted the counsel to the defendants, identified as Mrs Lovinah Benjamin, for contempt of court over alleged false statements contained in a written address filed in the matter.
The association also referenced another incident involving Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who allegedly ordered the detention of a legal officer with the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi, Martin Anyanwu, in the court’s holding facility on March 25, 2026.
The NBA said recent reports indicated that some lawyers had been subjected to degrading treatment in courtrooms, including being ordered to kneel or stand facing the wall under threat of contempt.
It said, “These reports are not only frightening but appear to show an increasing intolerance and penchant for abusing judicial powers by some judges.
Also Read: NBA tackles judge over courtroom humiliation row
“These actions of the learned trial judges are not only unfair but are exceedingly high-handed. The actions as well as the procedures adopted by the judges fly in the face of the rationale for punishment for contempt, which is the need to vindicate the dignity of the court and thereby protect the due administration of justice.”
The association warned that the power to punish for contempt must not be used to intimidate lawyers or suppress legitimate advocacy, noting that not every act of discourtesy amounts to contempt of court.
“It is not a contempt of court to criticise 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,” the statement added.
The NBA maintained that where a court considers the conduct of a lawyer improper, the proper procedure is to refer the matter to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee rather than resort to summary punishment.
It said, “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 association demanded the immediate release of the affected counsel and called on the Chief Judge of Rivers State to investigate the incident involving Justice Nwogu, while urging the National Judicial Council to take disciplinary action where necessary.
The NBA also threatened that its branches in Port Harcourt and neighbouring areas would boycott proceedings before the court of Justice Nwogu for seven days if the detained lawyer were not released within 24 hours.
“The NBA hereby directs 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 our 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 statement added.
PUNCH
