INTRODUCTION
The legal profession is often regarded as a noble profession. This presupposes that lawyers possess certain qualities that distinguish them as examples for other professionals to emulate. One of the qualities is the ability to apply courtesy in one’s choice of words, in or outside the court.
DISCUSSION
It is a vital requirement, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, for a lawyer to treat the court and other lawyers with respect, fairness, consideration, and dignity, and not to allow any ill-feeling between opposing clients to influence his/her conduct and demeanor towards other lawyers or towards the opposing client – Rules 26 (1) and 31 (1) RPC, 2007. Implicit in this rule is the lawyer’s duty to not only avoid the use of disrespectful words but also the duty to deliberately employ courteous language in both oral and written expressions.
It is absolutely possible for a lawyer to make a powerful submission without having to use discourteous language against a witness, colleague, or the court, as the case may be. Psychology scholars believe that discourteous language serves four basic functions: (a) to create attention (b) to provoke (c) to discredit and (d) for identification – (See M. Defrank & P. Kahlbaugh, “Language Choice Matters: When Profanity Affects How People Are Judged’ JLSP 2019, Vol. 38 (1) page 128). This presupposes that people who use unguarded language often think that they can, by such words, demean their victim and thereby earn some approval or sentiments for themselves. However, it does not work that way, especially in the legal profession. This is why the Court of Appeal per Sankey (J.C.A) in the case of FHA v. Nurudeen Adewale & Bros (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2017) LPELR-42821(CA) at page 43, opined that it is more demeaning of the person using an uncouth language than against the person to whom it is addressed.
The great jurist, Niki Tobi (J.S.C), in his book “The Brief System in Nigerian Courts” (Centre for Law and Development Studies, 1999) page 161 stated that: “An insulting or abusive Brief or derogatory Brief tells so much of the meanness of the author and Justices have bad or low opinion of such counsel.” The Supreme Court also endorsed the above statement in Abubakar & Ors v. Yar’adua & Ors (2008) LPELR-51(SC) when the Court reprimanded the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s counsel for describing a witness as ‘puerile, spurious, faux pore, morally despicable and chasing shadows’, in his brief of argument.
In a nutshell, some of the effects of using discourteous language are as follows:
- It tells so much about the character of the counsel from a negative perspective – Osayomi v. State (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) 352 at 369
- It does not portray the counsel in a good light as a gentleman of the bar.
- It destroys advocacy – Chukwuogor v. A.-G., Cross River State (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 534) 375 at 407
- It diminishes the lawyer’s estimation in the eyes of the court – Igbadoo & Anor v. Keystone Bank Ltd (2023) LPELR-60478 (CA) pages 11-12
- It is a disservice to a party on whose behalf such language is used.
- It taints the counsel/judge’s reasoning with fallacy since the premises upon which the conclusions are drawn tend to be argumentum ad hominem.
The above points have been underscored in a plethora of cases. In Chukwu v. INEC (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 385 at 418-419, the 1st respondent’s counsel used the following words to describe and accuse the appellant and his counsel: “contumacious fabrications” “fraud”, “collusion”, “treason”, “holy cows” etc. However, the Supreme Court found the counsel’s choice of words to be derogatory, insultive, and unbecoming of a legal practitioner, and accordingly deprecated same.
In Adeokin Records v. M.C.S.N. (Ltd GTE) (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 550, one of the grounds of appeal as couched by the learned Appellant’s counsel complained as follows: “The learned respondent’s counsel either fraudulently or negligently misrepresented section 15A to the Court of Appeal thereby making the learned Justices to arrive at the decision.” In discountenancing the Appellant’s counsel’s ‘outburst,’ the Supreme Court, per Eko J.S.C, at page 563, para-B held that the language used by the counsel was “emotionally charged, indecent and vituperative personal insults.”
In Udo v. Eshiet (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 483 at 503 paras D-E, learned counsel for the appellant used the forum of his brief to describe the respondent as a person “in a fanciful, startling and lie – trapped business”. In deprecating the counsel’s ‘unguarded language’, the Court of Appeal per Niki Tobi J.C. A (as he then was) held that that the counsel had no right to use the forum of a brief to insult either the parties or their witnesses as such style of practice is forbidden by both ‘decent advocacy’ and ‘tactful advocacy.’
The use of courteous language is required in the way lawyers address or criticize a judge. For instance, it is derogatory to accuse a judge of descending into the arena, without proof. – Sallah v. State (2023) LPELR-61045(CA). In this connection, it is discourteous for a lawyer to be part of the worrisome trend of social media attack on a judge (instead of a constructive criticism of the court’s judgment).
Interestingly, the requirement of courteous language also applies to Judges. In Musa v. Pinnacle Commercial Bank & Anor (2019) LPELR-48016 (CA) at pages 21-22, a High Court judge delivering his ruling on a motion filed by a counsel described the counsel as “a man who has no respect for himself, and no respect for the profession to which he belongs. He appears to be such a lawyer who will do anything on earth, anything at all for a fee. All the antics of filing series and series of application on virtually the same grounds give him away as a desperate man who wants to succeed by means of hooks and crooks.” In overturning the ruling of the High Court Judge, the Court of Appeal held as follows:
“It must be remembered that counsel who appear before the Courts to represent parties in case/matters are, as much as the judges, officers of the Courts who deserve to be treated with respect in the conduct of proceedings. Even in situation where the conduct of a counsel calls for criticism or admonition by the Court, appropriate language to be employed by the Court should be courteous, decent, but firm such that the message would be direct and clear, but not scurrilous, abusive, and disparaging of the personal integrity, and character of counsel. Judges, as representative of the creator on Earth in the Temple of Justice, are expected to be above the ordinary and be extra ordinary in patience, dignity, decency and humanity in words and actions; in the Court rooms where they are “Lords” and outside of the Court.”
Similarly, in Salim v. Ifenkwe (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 450) 564, each of the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal took the time to deprecate the conduct of the trial judge for referring to the Appellant’s counsel as a ‘camelion’ and insisting that the lawyer must present a power of attorney to prove his authority to represent his client. To the Court of Appeal: “It is indecent and discourteous of any judge to take undue advantage of his immunity to embarrass a counsel with insults and scurrilous remarks.” See also Menakaya v. Menakaya (2001) LPELR-1859 (SC).
Sometimes, when a judge uses discourteous language against a party in a judgment, it gives more impetus to the party to doubt the correctness of the judgment – Adeleke v. Oyetola (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1894) 71 at 122.
From the foregoing, it is clear that discourteous language has no place in the legal profession. On the other hand, courteous language is firmly entrenched, and it has several benefits for both the bar and the bench. These include the following:
- It earns the lawyer or judge more respect. Osayomi v. State (2007), 1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) 352 at 369
- It presents the lawyer as decent and tactful – Udo v Eshiet (supra)
- It preserves relationships.
- It makes written submissions or judgmentsreader-friendlyy.
- It improves advocacy – SPDCN v. Agbara (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1496) 353 at 414;Menakaya v. Menakaya (supra) at pg. 43.
- It enables the lawyer or the judge to focus on a logical analysis of facts and law (than on personal sentiments).
- It enables the judge to maintain the requisite composure and candour for a dispassionate resolution of the substantive issues – Obiora v. Osele (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) P. 279 at P. 296
- It reduces tension and keeps the courtroom atmosphere in a pleasant state.
CONCLUSION
Courteous language has been referred to as “the adamant stone which draweth unto itself the hearts and goodwill of all men, and a practice which does not only cast a glorious lustre round about, attract the eyes and heart of others, but it also reflects with cheerful and comfortable gleams upon ourselves.” See Anna Bryson, ‘From Courtesy to Civility” (Oxford University Press, 1982) page 112. It’s no wonder that the Court of Appeal in Udo v. Eshiet (supra) likened it to a ‘tactful advocacy’ – a quality that every lawyer should add to his/her skill set.
This article was written by Victor Obinna Chukwuma LLM, ACIArb (UK) – Associate at George Ikoli & Okagbue
