By Barr. Felix Akpotuaowei
As the battle for the soul of the IYC presidency rages between Pereotubo Oweilaemi, Esq and Eric Omare, Esq, there is need to caution some of the self-styled public affairs commentators. It is no longer news that Eric Omare had instituted an action against some actors of the IYC crisis supposedly on the side of Pereotubo Oweilaemi which judgment has been given in favour of Eric Omare in the early part of this month in Suit No. YHC/37/2017.
Similarly, some group of persons supposedly on the side of Eric Omare had instituted an action against Pereotubo Oweilaemi and others in Suit No. SHC/4/2017 which judgment has been given in favour of the Claimants.
I have read it in the social media with proof that Pereotubo Oweilaemi, Esq has commenced the processes of the appeal against Suit No. SHC/4/2017 while he has also applied to the lower Court to collect the certified true copy of Suit No. YHC/37/2017. The matter he has filed notice of appeal while taking steps to transmit the records of the appeal, to me, the appeal processes have commenced. This suffice to say that the matter is live at the appellate court.
In the circumstances of the above, no one is permitted to air legal opinion on such matter gleaned from plethora of legal authorities. Doing so will amount to contempt ex facie curiae (contempt outside the court). In other words, such prejudicial statement is a subjudice under our laws which the Nigerian jurisprudence frowned at.
Some of these public commentators may claim that they’re protected by section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which has to do with right to freedom of expression and the press. Does section 39(1) of the Constitution provides for freedom of expression without an exception? The section provides that: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”
However, subsection 3 of the section provides that: “Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society –
(a) for the purpose of preventing the disclosure. of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
(b) imposing restrictions upon persons holding office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law.”
By the provisions of subsequent 3 of section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it is clear that no one has an absolute right to air his view, especially on a pending matter in court. In Mobil Oil Nigeria Ltd. vs ASSCAN (1995) 8 NWLR (Part 412) 129 at 143, Uwais , JSC (as he then was ) held that: “In respect of criminal proceedings , it is forbidden for parties, their counsel or newspaper commentators to freely offer opinions in respect of matters pending in court, including any situation where a conviction has been entered but the convict’s appeal is pending at the appellate court.”
Frowning the pace at which people comment on pending legal matters in the newspapers, the former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Hon. Justice Nkanu Walter Onnoghen, GCON declared thus: “The Hon. CJN wishes to remind the general public that it is contempt of court for anyone to discuss any matter pending in any court of law in the country .
The punishment for contempt may include a term of imprisonment. To make matters worse, in such discourse, the language being used in describing the judgments of the courts is not only ungentlemanly, degrading and contemptuous, but amounts to uncharitable insults which should not be encouraged in any decent democracy.
The Hon. CJN reiterates his appeal to litigants, advocates and the public to refrain from making unsubstantiated and malicious allegations and complaints against judicial officers, and reminds judges to consider invoking their inherent power of contempt where there are clear violations or infractions in respect of matters that are subjudice…”
Just as the former CJN has warned, even lawyers and their litigants are guilty of this act. My attention was caught by a statement accredited to Henry Iyala, Esq, a lawyer who claimed to be the Spokesman of the Council on the side of Eric Omare to the effect that he assumed the position of the Justices of the appellate court. In paragraph 5 of his statement, he commented thus: “It is significant to note as already stated by an Ijaw Lawyer, Funororo Narebor in his beautiful legal piece that the judgements are declaratory judgements; hence they can not even be stayed. It therefore means that even if Oweilaemi filed any appeal, until the appeals are heard which may take up to four (4) to six (6) years at the Court of Appeal, the position remain same. The position can only change if his appeal against all the judgements succeed at the end of the appeal process.”
His statement also reminded me of another statements issued by one self-styled public affairs analyst, Funororo Narebor, Esq who also made prejudicial statement on the matter under appeal. Even if Funororo may be forgiven for his unbridled but ignorant attack on the judicial processes initiated by Pereotubo Oweilaemi and his national executive members of the IYC, Henry Iyala who is a party in the matter should not be forgiven for the professional misconduct he has committed.
Rules 33 of Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), 2007 provides succinctly that, “A lawyer or law firm engaged in or associated with the prosecution or defence of a criminal matter or associated with a civil action shall not, while litigation is anticipated or pending in the matter, make or participate in making any exra-judicial statement that is calculated to prejudice or interfere with, or is reasonably capably of prejudicing or interfering with fair trial of the matter or the judgment or sentence therein.”
The RPC recommends that lawyers should promptly report cases of professional misconduct to the Nigerian Bar Association for professional discipline to be carried out. For a respondent to tell the world that a matter in court which he is a party will take four to six years to conclude means he knows something others do not know. I think let him tell the appellate court what prompted him to say the matter in the court will take such number of years.
On whether the appeal processes are concluded before someone can be guilty of subjudice? Rule 33 of the RPC, 2007 said the mere fact that the matter is being contemplated of filing in the court and not only after filing it that one is precluded from commenting on it in the public. This suffice to say that once a court gives judgment over a matter and if one of the parties is taken steps to appeal against the judgment, none of the parties in the matter are allowed from making extral-judicial statement to preempt the appellate court. That is what Henry Iyala and his co-travellers have done, especially lawyers who take delight in practicing law in the social media.
Enough of these prejudicial statements by legal pawns in the legal chessboard who issued unsolicited pro bono legal services in the social media just to advertise their presence in flagrant breach of the rules of the professional conduct. The NBA and indeed, the entire legal profession need to take drastic steps to contain these lousy Facebook lawyers. It is time we put an end to these self-advertising sharp practices.
