15/02/2020
"A legal practitioner is a minister in the temple of justice. His first duty therefore is to act in the interest and promotion
of justice. This is what sustains his profession and makes it honorable. A counsel must not knowingly mislead the
court against the course of justice. This may lead to punishment by judicial process as a crime."
USMAN & ANOR. vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(2018)LPELR-45629(CA)
ISSUE: DUTY OF COUNSEL-Duty of counsel not to mislead the Court with manipulated and misrepresented decisions of Court to support his case
PRINCIPLE:
"One of the worst sins that a Counsel can commit is to manipulate, to misrepresent and to lie against the decision of
a Court. It is unethical conduct and a condemnable act - Ogudo Vs. The State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 1; Dariye Vs.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1467) 323. It is obvious that Counsel intended thereby to mislead
both the lower Court and this Court. In Momodu Vs. Momoh (1991) 2 LRCN 437, the Supreme Court held that "It is a
very serious matter and indeed sad for counsel whose bounden and inescapable duty is to assist the Court to appear
to be intent in misleading the Court. This attitude of counsel which is unethical and reprehensible, calls for condemnation by the Court in no uncertain terms."
Counsel, with respect, displayed throughout his approach in this appeal that he has an appalling and dismal
understanding of his responsibility as an advocate in Court. In Rondel Vs. Worsley (1967) 1 QB 443, Lord Denning,
MR, at page 501 explained the duty thus:
"As an advocate (the barrister) is a minister of justice equally with the judge. He has a monopoly of audience in the
higher courts. No one save he can address the judge, unless it be a litigant in person. This carries with it a
corresponding responsibility. A barrister cannot pick or choose his clients. He is bound to accept a brief of any man
who comes before the courts. No matter how great a rascal the man may be. ... He must accept the brief and do all
he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say "all he honourably can" because his duty is not only to his client. He
has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of these things. He owes allegiance to a higher cause. It
is the cause of truth and justice. He must not consciously mis-state the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the
truth. ... He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, the relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the most
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
The code which requires a barrister to do all this is not a code of law. It is a code of honour. If he breaks it, he is
offending against the rules of the profession and is subject to its discipline ..."
This statement on the duty of a legal practitioner was reiterated by this Court in Okonji Vs. Onwusanya (2012) LPELR-9286(CA) per Shoremi, JCA thus:
"A legal practitioner is a minister in the temple of justice. His first duty therefore is to act in the interest and promotion
of justice. This is what sustains his profession and makes it honorable. A counsel must not knowingly mislead the
court against the course of justice. This may lead to punishment by judicial process as a crime." Counsel to the
Appellants twisted the facts of case and misrepresented decided case law authorities to suit his purpose and
completely abdicated his responsibility to the cause of truth and justice in his conduct of this appeal. This Court will not
hesitate in reporting the Counsel to the appropriate disciplinary organ of his professional body at this time. It is
hoped that Counsel will adjust his actions to accord with the expected ethics of the Bar." Per ABIRU, JCA.(Pp.26-29,Paras.B-A).
