It seems like the legal profession does not want to be left out
of the new trend in entertainment, reality television. How else can
one explain the way that lawyers address an audience outside the
courthouse concerning matters that they are handling in court?
When a matter is sub judice it is unethical for counsel and
journalists to comment on the matter. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines sub judice as follows:
Sub Judice /sub juwdesiy/: Under or before a judge or court;
under judicial consideration; undetermined.
In the Law School, you are taught that when a matter is sub
judice, all comments, opinion on its conduct or otherwise is
forbidden, but lately there seems to be what, for want of a better
terminology, I would call “trial by press releases.”
Why these counsel, oftentimes than not they are very senior
counsel, would each time they are in court, inundate us with the
facts of the case and their views on: What the Judge said; What he
meant; What they think or know the position of the law to be; or
What they think about the other party and what he should do; etc.,
is what I do not understand. This sort of commentary is unethical
practice for legal practitioners but it is becoming the norm. It is
not unusual for legal practitioners to come out of the courthouse,
still robed in their wig and gown, and address the press on the
proceedings of court. So the legal practitioners go through the
rigours of law school, give the answers they need to pass the Bar
exams, and once they leave the confines of the law school, they
throw away all that was taught about unethical practices?
It almost seems like people want to try their cases in the media
and sensationalise the matter in court. You have lawyers sending
out press releases on matters that they are handling —
professionals in the press will know what I am talking about. The
truth of the matter is that it is only the judge who needs to be
impressed with your arguments. We, the public, have no power to
decide your case, so what is the point of whipping up sentiments in
the public. It is not even as though we have a jury system where
the opinions of 12 ordinary citizens can be swayed. Cases in
Nigeria are decided by the judge or judges (in appellate cases) who
must give their judgment based on evidence tendered in court, not
how masterfully the legal practitioners in the case can engage the
media. The focus for legal practitioners should be how to get the
best result for their clients, not addressing the media. It is
quite disturbing sometimes to watch how some of these lawyers carry
on. You wonder also, for whose benefit is all the show. Is it for
the client’s sake or does the lawyer want to make a name for
himself?
It may be that some of this publicity is driven by clients who
desire for whatever reason to keep the public abreast of their
matters in court, but their legal counsel should know better and
advise them otherwise. I would hate to think also that this is a
means for legal practitioners to extract some client funds for the
purpose of “public relations”. Even parties to a case are not to
discuss details of the case until it is determined by the courts.
Except in special circumstances, cases in Nigeria are tried in the
public, meaning that any and everyone has access to the courtroom
when a matter is going on. Any person who is interested in a matter
is free to attend court on any day that the matter is being heard.
What they cannot do is run commentary or discuss details of the
matter in public arenas.
When the matter is heard by the courts and a final decision has
been given, legal practitioners are then free to give us the
low-down on the matter; the challenges they faced, how they
overcame those challenges, and all the gory details of courtroom
warfare. It is more interesting to hear a complete story, I think.
Why give your opponent an insight into your war strategy?
Journalists also have a professional duty not to report on sub
judice matters. I recently met a journalist with the British
Broadcasting Corporation who was perplexed as to how freely
journalists in Nigeria report on sub judice matters. According to
him, the BBC has a very strict policy on reporting sub judice
matters and most of what is allowed to pass in the Nigerian press
would never be allowed by the BBC.
Legal practitioners just need to fight their cases in the
courts. If it is worth reporting, the bulk of us would rather wait
for the case to finish and be reported in the law reports to
ascertain the outcome of the case. The other aspect of cases being
tried in public is that proceedings of court are public
documents.
So please, whether you are a legal practitioner or a journalist,
be aware that you are walking a fine line when it comes to keeping
the public informed and the unethical practice of giving detailed
commentary on matters that are sub judice.
It seems like the legal profession does not want to be left out
of the new trend in entertainment, reality television. How else can
one explain the way that lawyers address an audience outside the
courthouse concerning matters that they are handling in
court?
When a matter is sub judice it is unethical for counsel and
journalists to comment on the matter. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines sub judice as follows:
Sub Judice /sub juwdesiy/: Under or before a judge or court;
under judicial consideration; undetermined.
In the Law School, you are taught that when a matter is sub
judice, all comments, opinion on its conduct or otherwise is
forbidden, but lately there seems to be what, for want of a better
terminology, I would call “trial by press releases.”
Why these counsel, oftentimes than not they are very senior
counsel, would each time they are in court, inundate us with the
facts of the case and their views on: What the Judge said; What he
meant; What they think or know the position of the law to be; or
What they think about the other party and what he should do; etc.,
is what I do not understand. This sort of commentary is unethical
practice for legal practitioners but it is becoming the norm. It is
not unusual for legal practitioners to come out of the courthouse,
still robed in their wig and gown, and address the press on the
proceedings of court. So the legal practitioners go through the
rigours of law school, give the answers they need to pass the Bar
exams, and once they leave the confines of the law school, they
throw away all that was taught about unethical practices?
It almost seems like people want to try their cases in the media
and sensationalise the matter in court. You have lawyers sending
out press releases on matters that they are handling —
professionals in the press will know what I am talking about. The
truth of the matter is that it is only the judge who needs to be
impressed with your arguments. We, the public, have no power to
decide your case, so what is the point of whipping up sentiments in
the public. It is not even as though we have a jury system where
the opinions of 12 ordinary citizens can be swayed. Cases in
Nigeria are decided by the judge or judges (in appellate cases) who
must give their judgment based on evidence tendered in court, not
how masterfully the legal practitioners in the case can engage the
media. The focus for legal practitioners should be how to get the
best result for their clients, not addressing the media. It is
quite disturbing sometimes to watch how some of these lawyers carry
on. You wonder also, for whose benefit is all the show. Is it for
the client’s sake or does the lawyer want to make a name for
himself?
It may be that some of this publicity is driven by clients who
desire for whatever reason to keep the public abreast of their
matters in court, but their legal counsel should know better and
advise them otherwise. I would hate to think also that this is a
means for legal practitioners to extract some client funds for the
purpose of “public relations”. Even parties to a case are not to
discuss details of the case until it is determined by the courts.
Except in special circumstances, cases in Nigeria are tried in the
public, meaning that any and everyone has access to the courtroom
when a matter is going on. Any person who is interested in a matter
is free to attend court on any day that the matter is being heard.
What they cannot do is run commentary or discuss details of the
matter in public arenas.
When the matter is heard by the courts and a final decision has
been given, legal practitioners are then free to give us the
low-down on the matter; the challenges they faced, how they
overcame those challenges, and all the gory details of courtroom
warfare. It is more interesting to hear a complete story, I think.
Why give your opponent an insight into your war strategy?
Journalists also have a professional duty not to report on sub
judice matters. I recently met a journalist with the British
Broadcasting Corporation who was perplexed as to how freely
journalists in Nigeria report on sub judice matters. According to
him, the BBC has a very strict policy on reporting sub judice
matters and most of what is allowed to pass in the Nigerian press
would never be allowed by the BBC.
Legal practitioners just need to fight their cases in the
courts. If it is worth reporting, the bulk of us would rather wait
for the case to finish and be reported in the law reports to
ascertain the outcome of the case. The other aspect of cases being
tried in public is that proceedings of court are public
documents.
So please, whether you are a legal practitioner or a journalist,
be aware that you are walking a fine line when it comes to keeping
the public informed and the unethical practice of giving detailed
commentary on matters that are sub judice.