Outrage as Judge Orders Lawyer to Kneel
The Nigerian Bar Association has condemned reported conduct by a Federal High Court judge who allegedly directed a defence lawyer to kneel during courtroom proceedings in Abuja, declaring that no judicial officer in Nigeria possesses the authority under law to issue such an order.
In a statement released on Tuesday, NBA President Afam Osigwe said the association viewed the incident involving Justice Mohammed Umar and lawyer Marshall Abubakar with utmost seriousness, warning that the development has implications for the dignity of the legal profession and the sanctity of the courtroom.
The incident occurred on Monday during proceedings in the cyberbullying case against activist and publisher Omoyele Sowore, when Justice Umar allegedly ordered Abubakar to step out of the bar and kneel after the lawyer raised his voice while addressing the court over the scheduling of hearing dates.
According to the NBA, the judge also issued threats of committal for contempt during the confrontation, which took place as Sowore was being prosecuted by the Department of State Services for allegedly making false claims against President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as a criminal in posts on his X and Facebook accounts.
The association emphasised that while judges possess authority to maintain order and discipline in their courts, such powers must be exercised strictly within legal bounds and established judicial standards.
“The courtroom is a temple of justice, governed by law, procedure and decorum. While judges are vested with the authority to maintain order and discipline in their courts, such authority must be exercised strictly within the bounds of the law and established judicial standards.”
The body acknowledged that judges possess powers to punish for contempt but stressed that such powers are guided by clearly defined legal procedures aimed at ensuring fairness and respect for the rights and dignity of persons appearing before the court.
The NBA made clear its position that directing a lawyer or any other person to kneel in court is not a recognised judicial sanction under Nigerian law and does not align with the standards of judicial conduct expected of members of the bench.
“If a judge is of the view that a person has acted in a manner that is contemptuous of the court, the judge must follow the accepted legal procedure for addressing such allegations,” the association said.
The confrontation reportedly escalated when Abubakar expressed dissatisfaction with an April 13 adjournment date set by the court, insisting it was not convenient for the defence. Tension rose further when both Sowore from the witness box and his lawyer simultaneously addressed the court, with Abubakar declaring that the court belongs to all and is not for some people alone.
Other lawyers in the courtroom, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Akinlolu Kehinde, quickly intervened and pleaded with the judge to forgive Abubakar. While the lawyers were still pleading, Justice Umar pronounced an adjournment to April 13 for the adoption of final written addresses and rose for the day.
The legal framework governing contempt proceedings in Nigeria provides strict procedural safeguards to protect the rights of persons accused of contemptuous behaviour. Under Nigerian law, contempt of court takes two main forms: contempt in facie curiae, which occurs in the presence of the court, and contempt ex facie curiae, which occurs outside the courtroom.
For contempt committed in the face of the court, judicial authorities have established that not every act of discourtesy constitutes contempt. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has held that for words or actions used in the face of the court to be contemptuous, they must be such as would interfere with the course of justice, not merely amount to rudeness or disrespect.
In the case of Joseph Izuora v The Queen, the Privy Council observed 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. The court noted that conduct may be clearly discourteous and may be a breach of professional rules, but such conduct does not necessarily cross the line between mere discourtesy and contempt.
Legal procedures for dealing with contempt ex facie curiae require the issuance of Form 48, which notifies the contemnor of the court order and the consequences of disobedience, followed by Form 49 after two days if compliance has not occurred, requiring the person to show cause why an order of committal should not be made. Only after these procedures have been followed may a motion for committal be filed.
For contempt in facie curiae, courts are required to observe principles of fair hearing even when dealing summarily with the matter. The Court of Appeal has held that the mere fact that a court is dealing summarily with contempt does not imply that the principles of fair hearing are to be compromised.
The NBA’s intervention follows a pattern of increased scrutiny of judicial conduct in contempt proceedings. In July 2022, the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Ekaette Obot, sentenced human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong to one month imprisonment for alleged contempt after he objected to the presence of armed police officers in her courtroom and asked her to recuse herself from a case involving Governor Udom Emmanuel.
That conviction generated widespread condemnation from civil society organisations, including Amnesty International Nigeria and the Nigeria Labour Congress, which called for Effiong’s release. The NBA at the time, under then President Olumide Akpata, criticised the chief judge for failing to follow due process in the committal proceedings.
Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees fair hearing to all persons, including those accused of contempt. The provision requires that persons be informed of the nature of any offence alleged against them, be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, and be allowed to defend themselves personally or through a lawyer of their choice.
Legal scholars have emphasised that contempt powers exist not for the personal aggrandisement of judges but for preserving the honour and dignity of the court. Judges are expected to avoid temperamental outbursts that could undermine proper procedure.
The NBA reminded legal practitioners of their duty to conduct themselves with professionalism, restraint and respect for the court at all times, noting that while lawyers are expected to advocate firmly and fearlessly on behalf of their clients, such advocacy must remain within the bounds of courtesy and courtroom decorum.
The association emphasised that the legal profession thrives on mutual respect between the bar and the bench, describing the relationship as fundamental to the administration of justice.
Afam Osigwe, who assumed office as the 32nd President of the NBA in August 2024, has made the promotion of professional standards and the protection of members’ rights central to his administration.
The NBA called for calm and restraint, urging that any grievances arising from courtroom incidents be addressed through appropriate institutional and disciplinary mechanisms, and indicated it would engage relevant authorities where necessary.
Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has been presiding over the cyberstalking case against Sowore since late 2025. The case stems from allegations by the DSS that Sowore described President Tinubu as a criminal in social media posts.
During earlier proceedings, Justice Umar rejected several documents tendered by the defence and at one point threatened to revoke Sowore’s bail when the activist failed to appear in court.
The ongoing trial has attracted significant public attention, with Sowore describing it as one of the most important political trials of 2026. He maintains that his statements are supported by court documents and public records.
The NBA has not indicated whether it will petition the National Judicial Council, but its statement suggests it is monitoring the situation closely and may take further action if necessary.
The incident has reignited debate about judicial temperament, the proper exercise of contempt powers, and the balance between maintaining courtroom decorum and protecting the rights of lawyers to represent their clients effectively.
As of the time of this report, neither Justice Umar nor the Federal High Court administration had issued an official comment. The case has been adjourned to April 13, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses on Sowore’s no-case submission.