RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF ONE’S CHOICE AND SENIOR ADVOCATE OF NIGERIA COURTROOM APPEARANCE RESTRICTION: INTERROGATING THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN ATIKU ABUBAKAR V. BOLORI

Abstract

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) is empowered by the Legal Practitioners’ Act, 1975 (LPA, 1975) to confer the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) on legal practitioners who have contributed to the growth and development of the law and thereby distinguish themselves. Upon conferment, the practice of the SAN is regulated by the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (Privileges and Functions) Rules, 1979 (SAN (P & F) Rules, 1979). Rules, 2, 3, and 6 of the SAN P&F Rules, 1979 disallow an SAN from appearing in inferior courts/tribunals except in criminal matters while Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (CFRN, 1999) grants the right to fair hearing to all citizens. Recently, the Court of Appeal in Mohammed Atiku-Abubakar v Miss Ummi Fatima Bolori reaffirmed its decision in The Registered Trustees of the ECWA Church v. Ijesha that by virtue of the aforementioned Rules 2, 3, and 6 of the SAN P&F Rules, 1979, an SAN is barred from appearing in inferior courts/tribunals in Nigeria save in criminal cases and that the Rules do not infract the right to fair hearing especially, the right to counsel of one’s choice. This decision raises certain issues one of which is what is the propriety/legality of Section 5(7) of the LPA, 1975 and Rules 2, 3 and 6 of the SAN P&F Rules, 1979 in the light of Sections 1(3) and 45 of the CFRN, 1999? Put differently, bearing in mind that Section 36 of the CFRN, 1999 is not one of the derogated rights mentioned under Section 45 thereof, can Section 5(7) of the LPA, 1975 and Rules 2, 3 and 6 of the SAN P&F Rules, 1979 be qualification of the right to fair hearing? What is the utilitarian value of excluding SAN from appearing in inferior courts/tribunal? These issues form the crux of this paper