Picture this: A senior lawyer who happens to be a politician attends to an accused client from his GK vehicle, which the client has paid for because he is in that privileged position. Better yet, a senator is driven from Senate proceedings in his suit only to appear, some minutes later, before a court in robes to attend to an accused client as his defence lawyer.
Worse, it may be that a lawyer is sitting in the Judicial Service Commission in the morning interviewing a judge for a job or promotion and then, in the afternoon, appears in front of the same judge pleading his client’s case.
How would we perceive a situation where one is an employer at one point and at another is pleading for a client in this reversal of roles? This is the absurdity we are witnessing in our corridors of justice. Unfortunately, justice is about perceptions as much as it is about the law.
The adoption of the 2010 Constitution ushered a new era with guidelines for courts in the exercise of their authority which include “justice shall be done to all, irrespective of status.” This means the administration of justice must be directed to the promotion of the purposes and principles of the Constitution.
After the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution came the so-called ‘big hat lawyers’. These include advocates who have all manner of political seats. Their roles are completely conflicted because on one hand they sit in the National Assembly or the Senate and, therefore, vet or oversight the same judges on one day and on the following day they appear before them for judicial guidance and faithfully obey their orders.
We all saw what happened during the August 2017 presidential election petition at the Supreme Court and other election-related cases thereafter where senior lawyers-turned-politicians represented their clients, effectively “intimidating” the courts.
Not that the courts have been intimidated: It’s simply immoral and misplaced.
Tragically, it seems that there is a trend that has now taken ground where those who lose (and those who win) in the political process are increasingly willing to turn to the courts to secure more political advantage and score political points.
In this case, intimidation has shown its face in the form of those who hold positions of power in government (Parliament or JSC), and are quietly manipulating the legislature or others in a way not advantageous to the court system.
This is tantamount to an increase in manipulative activity from politicians and leaders. We have seen it come to bear openly, for example, in efforts to cut courts’ budgets and, therefore, courts’ authority.
Things are slowly getting appalling.
True, there is no law that bars such lawyers from representing clients. But, this is simply a question of integrity and an individual’s morality. Admittedly, what is clear is that we do not have regulations and practice rules on such serious matters. And because representation in courts by the ‘big hat lawyers’ may cause bias, perceived or otherwise, it is important to clear this issue.
This is specifically true because such lawyers have one aim—to hijack the judge’s free exercise of judgment and discretion within the confines of the law, attempting to control through intimidation and threats how cases are decided.
With this kind of challenge, we have its attendant deeper problem of thinking about lawyers as the guardians of democracy.
Some criticism of what judges and courts say and do is fair game. But where the incursions cross the line and threaten judicial independence like what seems to be happening now, it is the obligation of the public, and lawyers in particular, and the professional organisations of which lawyers are a part such as the LSK, to address threats to judicial independence. Over to you.
