By Gbolahan Gbadamosi

The use of court boycott to effect a change in the judicial sector has attracted divergent views from legal practitioners, Gbolahan Gbadamosi reports. 
The recent court boycott embarked upon by Ilorin Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association over the transfer of a Chief Magistrate E.O Ibitoye by the former Chief Judge of Kwara State, Justice Raliat Elelu- Habeeb, brought to the fore again the issue of the desirability or otherwise of court boycott by NBA and to a large extent the Nigerian lawyers.

A member of the Ilorin branch, Mr. Ibrahim Olanrewaju, was said to have been assaulted by some policemen at a checkpoint. Chief Magistrate Ibitoye who was adjudicating the matter issued warrant of arrest against the policemen. But the former CJ transferred Ibitoye out of Ilorin for reasons best known to her.

The Ilorin branch of the NBA therefore asked for the reversal of the transfer and when this was not done, it embarked upon a court boycott. Happily, Ibitoye has been redeployed back to Ilorin. The Ilorin incident was one of the cases in which NBA at national level has been using to press for its demands.

It will be recalled that NBA under the presidency of late Alao Aka -Bashorun embarked upon court boycott in the late 80s to protest the high handedness of the military regime. Lawyers also protested against the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by the late Chief M. K. O. Abiola.

Three years ago, the NBA called out its members nationwide from the courtrooms for two days to protect government‘s disregard for court decisions. The decision to boycott courts in 2006 was taken at the NBA‘s National Executive Committee meeting in Benin, Edo State, relying on the criticisms by leading Nigerian lawyers and judicial officers for government‘s selective respect for court decisions. Lawyers cited the case of two state governors that were removed without regard for due process.

The NBA at that time also criticised officials of the Federal Capital Authority for what they considered blatant lack of respect for the judiciary. Expectedly, the government of the day rejected the accusations.

Ilorin crisis also received the endorsement of Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) - led NBA, saying that ‘The NBA does not agree with the Chief Judge‘s actions culminating in the primitive transfer of Mr. Ibitoye, a Chief Magistrate in the Kwara State judiciary. The association condemns the treatment meted out to Ibitoye by the Commissioner of Police and the CJ in their attempt to stifle judicial functions.”

The 2007 general elections adjudged by international observers to be the worst in the nation‘s history also received a one -day court boycott by NBA on May 18, 2007. 

Court boycott by lawyers is not restricted to Nigerian lawyers alone. Often we read of the roles played by Pakistani lawyers to register their protests by shunning court sittings. Lawyers boycotted courts across Pakistan in 2007 while protesting the ouster of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary, who was scheduled to appear before the Supreme Judicial Council to defend himself from charges of misconduct and abuse of his authority, contained in the presidential reference against him.

Opposition parties joined the legal community in the protests, calling on the former President Pervez Musharraf to quit and made way for a national government.

Lawyers took out processions in major towns and clashed with police in various cities including Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore and Quetta. Outside the heavily guarded Supreme Court Building, lawyers burnt an effigy of Gen. Musharraf.

A newspaper opened another can of worms during the protest that two of the judges, who would have sat in the council, have references pending against them containing serious charges. In the neighbouring Kenya, judges protested against conditions of service in 2003.

With this background, the same question to address is whether the option of court boycott by lawyers globally is desirable.

The school of thought, led by the doyen of the Nigerian legal profession, the late Chief Frederick Rotimi Alade Williams (SAN), believed that since NBA ”is not a trade union” option of strike or court boycott amounted to a breach of contract with their clients. Williams died four years ago, but his view on lawyers‘ court boycott is still fresh in our minds.

Speaking at the NBA - NEC meeting hosted by the Ikeja Branch in November 2003, Williams warned that “Lawyers live by the law and we must scrupulously avoid being seen to break the law without any compulsion.” He also touched or the issue of judicial corruption and judicial appointments.

On the issue of strike by lawyers, Williams opened up thus: “Before I close my address, I must say a few words about strike by lawyers. Some 11 years ago I wrote an article on this subject in the Law Journal of Nigerian, which contains all my arguments on the matter. I am handing a copy of the Journal to our President. My appeal is to call upon the association to give serious consideration to the matter and to lay down guidelines for the association. The thrust of my argument is that the basis of the relationship of a lawyer with his client is contract.

A lawyer who fails to turn up in court is committing a breach of contract. If the executive of a branch of the NBA calls a strike of its members, then it is unlawfully inducing each member of the association to commit a breach of contract with his clients. We all know that the Trade Union Act expressly enables a trade union or its executive to call a strike without being liable for any wrong. But the NBA is not a trade union, and has no such statutory protection. You imagine how a client who is charged for murder will feel when he gets to court and finds that his lawyers is on strike because court fees in civil actions have been increased by the authorities. 

“Let the lawyers carry out their protest or demonstration against measures which they don‘t approve of in any way in which they think fit and proper but do not let them do so by committing unlawful acts against their clients. Think also of the embarrassment into which you put the judges. Do not put them in a position in which you literally invite them to aid and abet breach of contract or the wrong of unlawfully inducing breach of contract. We lawyers live by the law, and we must scrupulously avoid being seen to break the law without any compunction, ”Williams submitted.

To some lawyers, the word “strike” used by late Williams is not applicable. Lawyers, they say, do not go on strike but boycott courts as they carry out other aspects of judicial services in their chambers. 

The court boycott, according to Ikeja Branch of the NBA during the chairmanship of Mr. Bisi Ade-Ademuwagun in 2003 was justified when he led his members to protest the increase in the filing fees by the litigants.

One of Ade-Ademuwagun‘s successors and the current second vice-president of the NBA, Mr. Adekunle Ojo, believed that since we are still a developing country, NBA needs to be a pressure group.

”Nigerian governments are insensitive to the cry of the people. Diplomacy is not in their dictionary. Hence the use of court boycott is a necessary tool”, he noted.

To the immediate past General Secretary of the NBA, Chief Rafiu Lawal- Rabana (SAN), ”as a man who cherishes the ethics of the profession, option of court boycott should be the last weapon to be used by lawyers. I will not encourage it. It can be used after dialogue has failed.”

Answering a question recently in a national newspaper recently, a 90- year -old Chairman of the Body of the Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Chief Tanimose Bankole -Oki (SAN), spoke on why lawyers have not boycott courts in protection of the 1999 Constitution, saying that, ”We cannot say no to it like that. We cannot in protest boycott the courts. Remember it is this same court that is rested with the authority to resolve whatever complaints we have against the document.

“In other words, you can‘t sit in your room and say no to it. You have to go to the highest court in the land. The submission at the court is that the 1999 Constitution is not a Nigerian constitution.”

Bankole-Oki, a former Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, added, “Again, the presidential system of government we practice today is a great pity. It is most unsuitable for this country. How many Nigerians understand what presidential constitution means? What is the percentage of the Nigerian population that is educated? This is because education is a pre-requisite to understanding the operation of a constitution. Presidential constitutional form of government is far expensive to run. It involves a lot of unnecessary expenses. And of course, presidential form of government promotes corruption. That is one of the reasons why corruption is on the increase today and could not be checked.”

Of course court boycott, according to a political party, National Conscience Party was commendable while the former Kwara State Attorney- General and Commissioner for Justice, Chief Olasupo Ashaolu (SAN) relied on Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 2007 to endorse the option of court boycott.

His words, “By virtue of Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 states that a lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice. The NBA can embark on strike in line with this provision in order to press home its views on national issues. This the NBA has done on several occasions e.g. there was a nationwide boycott of lawyers on March 13th & 14th 2006 to support the important work of the court in upturning unconstitutional behaviour of the Federal Government. This impact of the boycott energised the judiciary in no small way as the boycott was of an immense success then. When lawyers downed their wigs and gowns all courts were then deserted and government had no option than to comply with the court‘s rulings. Government then assured future compliance with the court decisions.

“The position of the NBA encouraged judicial activities. Also in 2007, the role of the legal and judicial institutions saved the country from political crisis. Therefore there is no reason why the NBA cannot embark on strike against a policy of the government that can have adverse effect on the rule of law and the common man on the street.”

Immediate past Secretary of the Lagos Branch of NBA, Mr. Ike Uko, urged the NBA to be more involved in politics.

I was about to finish this piece when the NBA-NEC rose from its two-day meeting in the ”Seat of Caliphate”, Sokoto, Sokoto State and resolved among others to salute the heroic struggle of its members in Ilorin for standing up against the tyranny of the former CJ.In conclusion, using court boycott by lawyers is desirable and I vote for it. 

 Gbadamosi, a lawyer, is a contributor to The PUNCH Law Page.