There has been widespread outrage within Nigeria’s legal community as a result of the order of a Federal High Court judge in Abuja who ordered Marshal Abubakar, lawyer representing activist Omoyele Sowore to kneel down during court proceedings.

The lawyer drew the ire of the judge when he raised his voice while making submissions in court.

Abubakar raised his voice while insisting that the date chosen by the court for the defence to open its case was not convenient for him.

Apparently out of anger, Umar then ordered Sowore’s lawyer to “come out” of the bar area of the courtroom “and kneel down.”

Other lawyers, however, quickly prevailed upon the judge to forgive Abubakar

The Department of State Services (DSS) is prosecuting Sowore on charges of calling President Bola Tinubu a “criminal” in his posts via his X and Facebook handles.

Sowore was originally charged alongside the parent companies of X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook on 5 December 2025.

But a recent amendment to the charges saw X Incorp and Meta (Facebook) Incorp dropped from the case as defendants. It left Mr Sowore as the sole defendant.

The amendment also pruned down the number of counts from five to two.

Monday’s drama started after defence lawyer, Mr Abubakar, concluded the cross-examination of the only prosecution witness.

The prosecuting lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), then announced the closure of their case and applied that the defence be called upon to open their case.

When the judge asked Abubakar when they planned to open their defence, the lawyer said the defendant would make a no-case submission and suggested that the court should adjourn until a date in July.

Responding, Mr Kehinde objected and argued that it was part of the defence’s dilatory tactics intended to further delay proceedings.

He suggested that the case be heard on a daily basis.

In his intervention, the judge said that while the prosecution was swift in conducting its case, the defence was tardy, spending four days in cross-examining the prosecution’s only witness.

The judge said it was not feasible to hear the case on a daily basis, but directed parties to return on 13 April for the adoption of their final written addresses in respect of the no-case submission.

Abubakar seemed uncomfortable with that date.

While Sowore was addressing the judge from the dock on how the proposed date might affect his party’s upcoming primaries, his lawyer also simultaneously began addressing the judge, narrating how his client was poised to wrest power from President Tinubu.

“This court belongs to all of us. This court is not for some people alone. It belongs to all of us,” Mr Abubakar yelled.

Reacting to the development, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) described the incident as deeply troubling, stressing that no judge has the power under Nigerian law to order a lawyer—or any individual—to kneel in court.

In a statement signed by its President, Afam Osigwe (SAN), the association said the development raises serious concerns about the dignity of the legal profession and the sanctity of the courtroom.

“The courtroom is a temple of justice, governed by law, procedure, and decorum,” the NBA stated, noting that while judges have the authority to maintain order, such powers must be exercised strictly within the confines of the law.

The association emphasised that although courts possess the power to punish for contempt, such authority is guided by established legal procedures designed to ensure fairness and protect the rights and dignity of all parties.

“A judge directing a legal practitioner or any person whatsoever to kneel in court is not a recognised judicial sanction under our laws and does not align with the standards of judicial conduct expected on the Bench,” the statement added.

The NBA further stressed that any allegation of contempt must be handled through due process, warning against arbitrary or degrading punishments that could undermine confidence in the judiciary.

While condemning the reported action, the association also reminded lawyers of their responsibility to conduct themselves with professionalism and respect in court.

It noted that although legal practitioners are expected to advocate firmly on behalf of their clients, such advocacy must remain within the bounds of decorum and must not disrupt proceedings.

The NBA called for calm among stakeholders and urged that grievances arising from courtroom incidents be addressed through appropriate institutional and disciplinary channels.

It also assured that it would engage relevant authorities where necessary to ensure that judicial ethics, professional standards, and the rule of law are upheld.

The incident has since sparked debate across the legal community, highlighting concerns over the balance of power between the Bench and the Bar, and the need to safeguard the dignity of courtroom proceedings. (Daily Trust)

Update news