PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
It has come to our notice that the Honourable Chief Justice of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Uyo, Justice Ekaette Obot, has ordered the arrest of a lawyer and human rights advocate, Inibehe Effiong Esq., on the allegation of contempt in the face of the court.
From information gathered from the learned gentleman's Twitter handle, he was representing one Leo Ekpenyong in a libel suit filed by Governor Udom Emmanuel. The counsel had applied to the court to recuse herself in the matter on the fear that she is likely to be biased. This application was brought to the notice of the court but the court ignored it and commanded that counsel commenced his cross examination. Thereafter, his lordship asked the Premium Times reporters that were in the courtroom to leave the court.
When, counsel observed two armed mobile policemen sitting intimidatingly in the courtroom he prayed for the court's protection by asking the armed policemen to leave the courtroom. At this point, according to the counsel, the Honourable Chief Judge asked the counsel to step out of the bar and cited him for contempt without even hearing him on the charge of contempt. His lordship simply ordered the same armed policemen to take him into custody and remand him in the Uyo Correctional Center for 1 (one) month.
While we appreciate the power of the court to deal with issues of contempt under the Federal and States High Court Civil Procedure Rules and Judgment (Enforcement) Rules made pursuant to Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, we do not think the Honourable CJ has acted within her powers or used the said power judiciously and judicially as is required of her.
Even though contempt in the face of court could be dealt with summarily (not requiring the calling of evidence) the court is duty bound to hear the alleged contemnor by asking him to show cause why he should not be dealt with for his contempt. From the information gathered from counsel, no such procedure was followed. More importantly, there appears to be no basis for the alleged contempt.
The power to punish a person for contempt is not conferred on the court for the judge's personal ego or aggrandizement. It is the power to protect the cause of justice from being abused or hindered. Thus there is a clear distinction between conduct which affects the dignity of the Court or which tends to bring the administration justice to disrepute and conduct which merely annoys the judge. In Joseph Izuora v The Queen the Privy Council held authoritatively and succinctly that:
“It is not every act of discourtesy to the Court by Counsel that amounts to contempt, nor any conduct which involves a breach by Counsel of his duty to his client. In the present case the appellant’s conduct was clearly discourteous, it may have been a breach of the rules and it may perhaps have been a dereliction of his duty to his client but in their Lordship’s opinion it cannot properly be placed over the line that divides mere discourtesy from contempt.”
It must be emphasised that the judge does not even have the power to punish the learned counsel or anybody for that matter for contempt simply because she felt insulted or annoyed. That also would be an abuse of the power to punish for contempt. In Adeyemi Candid-Johnson v. Mrs Esther Edigi, the Honourable Court of Appeal while condemning such abuse or inordinate use of the power to punish for contempt, held as follows:
"Apparently, when tempers rose rather meteorically, the respondent, exacerbated by the situation, unleashed this incisive question: “When did you leave the law school? The response, going by the record, was equally unrelenting: “I will refuse to answer that question in the rudest manner.”
It was the refusal to answer this question, according to the record, that broke the camel’s back, and led to the detention of the appellant for contempt of court. It was unfortunate, to say the least, for the respondent, according to the records, to have taken leave of her exalted bench, invited counsel to extra-judicial dialogue, and thereafter descended into the arena of vituperative conflict with him”.
The only instance in which words or action of a person or counsel could amount to contempt in the face of the court is when such action would interfere in the course of justice. Even then, such powers must be used sparingly In Inec & Anor v. Oguebego & Ors the Honourable Supreme Court held authoritatively and succinctly that:
For words or actions used in the face of the Court, or in the course of proceedings, to be contempt, they must be such as would interfere with the course of justice. A superior Court of record has the inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily. It must once again be emphasised that the summary power of punishing for contempt should however, be used sparingly and only in serious cases….”
In this situation wherein the judge summarily ordered the imprisonment of a counsel for contempt, it is evident that the judge never heard the counsel on his allegation of contempt. More worrisome is the fact that there is evidently nothing to warrant the punishment for contempt. There is no law or jurisdiction in which making a formal application that seems more like an application for protection by the court would suddenly amount to an act of contempt. Even if the chief judge felt insulted by the application, there appears to be nothing in the said application that amounts to an obstruction of justice.
What is even more unfortunate is the fact that the learned counsel had filed a motion before the court for the court to recuse herself on the ground that she is likely to be biased in the handling of the case. This committal for contempt evidently confirms the fear of the counsel. It is getting clear that the travail of counsel was preplanned and premeditated. Her lordship evidently planned to arrest the counsel and to do that. That's evidently why she ordered journalists out of the court while at the same time planting armed mobile policemen in the court
This is nothing but a travesty of justice. It is a very debased desecration of the hallowed temple of justice by the very official on whose shoulders lies the burden of protecting rights, justice and the sanctity of the court. It is a flounting of the right of the defendant in that case to have a lawyer represent him. It is the flaunting of the fundamental rights of the lawyers.
We call on the Honourable Chief Justice to immediately save the situation, reverse the order of committal and recuse herself from the case. We also call on the National Judicial Commission (NJC) to wade into this matter, review the activities of the said Chief Justice and stop this descent into anarchy. The power to commit a person for contempt is not for a judge's self aggrandizement. Moreso, it cannot be used to intimidate a counsel from properly representing his client.
1. Samuel Akpologun
Ace & Vanguard Legal Practitioners
2. Okechukwu Nwanguma
Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre
3. Ambassador Onoja
Next Generation Youth Initiative International (NeGYII)
4. Amb. Christogonus C. Ibe,
African Youths Initiative on Crime Prevention
CHIEF (DR) PATRICK OSAGIE EHOLOR, PRESIDENT OF ONE LOVE FOUNDATION OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ULTIMATE EQUAL. ❤️