By Sylvester Udemezue
*INTRODUCTION
The events of March 24, 2026, at the Federal High Court, Abuja, involving activist Omoyele Sowore and the subsequent response of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), have triggered a conversation that extends far beyond the narrow question of courtroom etiquette.
By most accounts, the controversy arose when Sowore attempted to speak with journalists within the courtroom at a time the court was not in session, leading to a confrontation and, shortly thereafter, a strongly worded reaction from the NBA.
The Association reiterated, quite correctly, that courtrooms are not venues for media briefings and described the conduct attributed to Sowore as inconsistent with courtroom discipline. Sowore, for his part, denied staging a press conference and accused the NBA of selective outrage. Yet, beyond the immediate facts lies a deeper and more consequential issue.
This discourse is not about defending disorder. Courtrooms are solemn spaces and must be treated with restraint, dignity, and respect. No serious-minded person should encourage conduct that trivialises judicial proceedings. That is not the point. The real question is whether the intensity of the reaction reflects a deeper institutional imbalance, one that prioritises symbolic infractions while underreacting to the far more profound challenges undermining the administration of justice in Nigeria.
*A QUESTION OF INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES*
The NBA is undoubtedly on firm ground in insisting that the courtroom is not a theatre or a publicity arena. That principle is foundational and largely uncontroversial. However, a more pressing question arises: why does the Association often appear most animated when the issue is symbolic, yet comparatively restrained when the issue is systemic? If the legal profession must be stirred to righteous indignation, should that indignation not first be directed at the conditions that have steadily eroded public confidence in the judiciary? Reports over recent years have painted a troubling picture: declining public trust, a growing backlog of cases, and repeated warnings, even from within the judiciary itself, about delays in justice delivery. These are not marginal concerns; they go to the very heart of the justice system. Surely, these are the matters that ought to command the sustained attention, urgency, and collective energy of the Bar.
*THE REAL THREATS TO JUSTICE*
Nigeria’s judiciary is not under strain because a layman granted an interview within court premises, particularly when proceedings were not ongoing. It is under strain because of deeper, structural challenges: delays that turn justice into endurance; persistent allegations of corruption; executive pressure; manipulation of judicial processes; weak institutional discipline; and a growing crisis of public confidence. Analyses by governance and rule-of-law organisations have consistently pointed to issues such as political influence, inadequate funding, resource constraints, and internal ethical lapses as central threats to judicial independence and integrity. These are the real fault lines. This is where the crisis lies. This is the substance. This is the fire. And yet, too often, we leave the fire unattended while directing our attention to the smoke.
*SELECTIVE OUTRAGE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES*
Sowore’s central criticism, that the NBA reacts selectively, may be uncomfortable, but it is not without resonance. His question, in essence, is simple: where is the same institutional urgency when more serious violations of courtroom sanctity occur, particularly when such violations involve powerful actors or state institutions? Many Nigerians can readily relate to this concern. They see a justice system burdened by prolonged delays, weighed down by technicalities, and, at times, perceived as susceptible to influence. They observe a system where the ordinary litigant often faces a process that is slow, expensive, and uncertain. One need not endorse Sowore’s conduct to acknowledge the force of his question. And it is precisely here that greater institutional wisdom was required. An issue of courtroom etiquette could have been addressed firmly, calmly, and proportionately. It did not require the level of moral escalation that now risks presenting a single incident as emblematic of the most pressing dangers to justice delivery. It is not.
*WHERE THE REAL UNDERMINING OCCURS*
The more serious challenges confronting the administration of justice in Nigeria are well known and widely acknowledged. They include the troubling reality of cases that linger in courts for years, transforming litigation into a form of punishment. They include the growing perception that outcomes may sometimes be shaped not only by law and fact, but also by influence, pressure, and status. They include the continued reliance, in many instances, on non-legally trained personnel for criminal prosecution at the lower levels, despite statutory provisions aimed at professionalising the process. They include also the difficult welfare conditions faced by many legal practitioners, especially younger members of the Bar, and the structural distortions caused when election-related litigation consumes disproportionate judicial time and resources. Perhaps most damaging of all is the steady erosion of public confidence: fueled by recurring allegations of compromised processes, conflicting orders, and procedural manipulation. These are not peripheral issues. They are foundational.
*A CALL FOR INSTITUTIONAL INTROSPECTION*
There was a time when Nigerian courts commanded profound moral authority. That authority did not derive from ceremonial symbols or institutional posturing, but from a widespread belief that the courts were serious forums for the fair and impartial administration of justice. That confidence has diminished. And it did not diminish because of Sowore. It diminished because practices that should have remained exceptional gradually became normal: endless adjournments, selective urgency, procedural gamesmanship, weak disciplinary standards, and a professional culture that sometimes prioritises image over introspection. It is important to recognise that criticism is not hostility. In many instances, it is the highest form of institutional loyalty. To suggest that the NBA should focus more deliberately on substantive threats to justice is not to undermine the Association; it is to call it back to its foundational purpose.
*CONSISTENCY AS THE MEASURE OF CREDIBILITY*
If the dignity of the courtroom is to be preserved, it must be defended consistently. It must matter whether the perceived threat comes from an activist, a security agency, a politically exposed individual, or even members of the legal profession itself.
If the rule of law is to be upheld, the same moral seriousness must be applied to executive interference, judicial delays, corruption allegations, and disobedience of court orders, as is applied to questions of courtroom conduct. Anything less risks creating the impression, fair or otherwise, that the profession is more adept at policing appearances than confronting substance. That impression is not only damaging; it is dangerous.
*SOWORE AND THE REAL CRISIS*
It must therefore be stated plainly: Omoyele Sowore is not among the central challenges facing the administration of justice in Nigeria. At most, the incident in question reflects an error of judgment. But an individual misstep is not equivalent to systemic failure. The true challenges are deeper, more entrenched, and far more consequential: delay, distrust, institutional weakness, perceived influence, and the widening gap between the ideal of justice and the lived reality of those who seek it. These are the issues that demand the attention of the Bar.
*CONCLUSION: A CALL FOR PROPORTION AND COURAGE*
This is not an argument for indiscipline. It is an argument for proportion. It is not an attempt to excuse what should be corrected. It is a plea that we do not exaggerate minor irregularities while underreacting to major deformities. A justice system is not undone by a single interview within a courtroom. It is undone when delay becomes entrenched, when public trust collapses, when influence overshadows principle, and when reform is overshadowed by performative outrage.
The NBA remains too important an institution to be distracted by shadows. The Nigerian legal profession remains too noble a calling to be reduced to optics. And the administration of justice in Nigeria is in too fragile a state for us to misidentify the problem. Sowore is not the problem. The problem is the deeper rot that has long been visible, widely discussed, and yet insufficiently confronted. That is where the conversation must begin. That is where courage is required. And that is where meaningful reform must be pursued.
Respectfully,
(Sylvester Udemezue (udems)
(Member, NBA, Lagos Branch)
08021365545.
udemsyl@gmail.com.
(24 March 2026))