In Nigeria, the Rule of Professional Conduct for the legal profession
Rule 6(b) provides;
While the court is in session, a lawyer should not assume an
undignified posture, and should not, without the judge's permission,
remove his wig and gown in the courtroom. He should always be attired
in a proper and dignified manner, and abstain from apparel or ornament
calculated to attract attention to himself.
From the clear wordings of the above Rules of Professional Conduct, it
is clear that no particular dress code was specified by the Rules. The
Rules appear to have been lifted in Toto from the Code of Conduct of
England and Wales which never spelt out what a Barrister's dress code
should be; it only stated "Respectable dress".
In England, today, however by convention rather than regulation, dark
suits, black jacket and pinstripes, wig and gown, are traditionally
worn in court by men, while lady barristers wear dress and no slacks.
At the time of writing, the writer could not lay hands on any specific
regulation by the Nigerian Bar Council specifying in detail, what the
dress code of legal practitioners will be like in Nigeria, therefore
from all indications, it is to be assumed and, rightly so, that the
English lawyers conventional dressing code was silently adopted in
Nigeria, without taking our culture and climatic conditions into
consideration. The Nigeria Council of Legal Education on its
establishment has tried to spell out in clear terms, what the dress
code of lawyers should be like.
The Nigeria Law School Code of Conduct Rule 29(a) provides: He should
be well-dressed at all times. The regulation on dress for male
students is dark suits, white shirts, black ties (not bow tie), black
socks and black shoes with white breast pocket, handkerchiefs, and
striped black trousers may be worn under dark jackets
Rule 2(b) of the said Code of Conduct further stipulated the dressing
code for females as: For female students, white blouse, dark jacket
and black skirts, covering knees (dark suit) or dark ladies and black
shoes are to be worn. There should be no embroidery and trimmings of
any type, and only moderate jewellery.
The Nigerian Law School Code of Conduct, further stated in Rule 2(b),
that at all law dinners, students must be punctual, and be in
regulation dress; it further stated that at call to bar ceremonies,
qualified students must wear regulation dress and also the Wig, Winged
collar and Bids or Collarette and Barristers' Gown. Finally, the rule
concluded by stating that the above mode of dressing is mandatory for
both male and female, while at the law school and other extra
curricula activities, and when called to the Bar, and attendance at
magistrate and all superior courts.
From all indications, it is clear that the above cited Code of Conduct
of the Nigerian Law School legally institutionalized the use of dress
code in the legal profession in Nigeria. The question that ordinarily
agitates one's mind is, why imposing a similar English lawyer's dress
code on the Nigerian legal profession? Is it not one of the relics of
colonialism, which we ought to have discarded after 52years of
independence? Why are we still slavishly adhering to another man's
culture, without taking into consideration our climatic conditions and
the constitutional right of every individual to self-expression? Is a
lawyer not entitled to wear anything that suits him, in so far as it
is neat and dignified? Why trying to hinder or fetter a lawyer's right
to self-expression, which right is guaranteed under Section 39(1) of
the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria?
In the light of section 39(1) therefore, is the dress code for
lawyers as stipulated by the Nigerian Law School, not
unconstitutional? Every citizen of Nigeria, and indeed every lawyer,
is entitled to express himself in any wear which in his own opinion is
suitable to him, in so far as it is modest. Are lawyers in Nigeria not
sticking to the old conservative ways of the Englishman? It is the
writer's view that what matters in the administration of Justice is to
the need to ensure that substantial justice is done in all cases. What
a lawyer decides to put on, is immaterial. There was an instance where
a judge refused to hear out a female lawyer because she was putting on
a bright coloured blouse under her gown. Does this denial of
appearance not amount to a infringement of her client's right to fair
hearing?
It is noteworthy that the Nigerian Law School Code of Conduct did not
stipulate any punishment for non conformity with the Code. The
question may be asked, can a lawyer not wear attire in which he feels
he can best express himself in court? One can go a step further in
this enquiry by asking what the rationale for this dress code is for
lawyers and law students. As far as doctors or students doctors are
concerned, their white lab coat is understandable as it ensures their
neatness, it also prevents transmission of one infection or the other,
especially during surgery. In the case of lawyer's wig and gown, some
rationalize the dark suit, wig and gown dress code by saying that it
reflects the solemnity of the proceedings, especially in murder cases,
when one's client's life is at stake, they argue that it is only
proper that you do not dress flamboyantly. It is submitted that
dressing alone is not always a true reflection of how the individual
feels; one can also express his inner feeling through his or her
general conduct in court.
Firstly, it should be noted, right away, that in England wig and gown
are still being retained because they distinguish a barrister from a
solicitor; the former is entitled to appear in court fully robed while
a solicitor does not enjoy such privilege. Secondly, the protagonists
of the retention of wig and gown in England also argue that it suits
the climatic condition of England and Wales. Thirdly, they argue that
it confers dignity and solemnity on court proceedings. Fourthly, wigs
according to them lend anonymity in highly charged criminal cases.
Finally, they claim that it obscures the differences of age and
gender, and consequently serves as equalizer in a profession dominated
by men. In Nigeria, the first and second reasons do not apply because
every legal practitioner, by virtue of being called to the Bar, is an
advocate and solicitor of Supreme Court of Nigeria. Therefore, here in
Nigeria, the need for the wig and gown to distinguish the 'barrister'
from 'solicitor' does not arise. Secondly, the climatic condition in
Nigeria does not need to be further compounded with English dress code
and its other paraphernalia. It is interesting to note that already
in England, there have been several moves in the past to do away with
the lawyer's wig and gown.
Coming home to Nigeria, why have we continued its retention, the
English barristers themselves have been debating since Lord
Chancellor's Consultation paper of 1992, whether to abolish the wig
and Gown or not. Why is it that no such debates have ever taken place
in Nigeria? In England, the issue of constitutionality of barristers'
dress code was never addressed by those attacking the wig and gown.
This is probably as a result of the fact that it was adopted by
convention. No English law or regulation required the wig to be worn
by judges or barristers. In Nigeria, however, the Council of Legal
Education has made the barristers' dress code mandatory not only in
attending courts, but other extracurricular activities. Is this
requirement of Code of Conduct not too far-reaching? It did not stop
at making the regulation dress mandatory in Magistrate Courts, and all
Superior Courts, but extended same to other extra curricula
activities, like Bar Dinners. Lawyers in Nigeria are expected to wear
their regulation dresses to Bar Dinners and other judicial functions.
Whereas in England, during the lawyers' Alumni Group Dinner of 19th
February 2002, the dress code was stated to be long and not mandatory
black suit, yet in Nigeria we have continued to stick to our usual
dark suits of black for Bar Dinner. Other British colonized countries
have equally held unto this dress code. For example, Hong Kong and
Uganda have continued to wear wig and gown. In fact in India, the Bar
Council of that country prescribes a strict regulation dress and an
advocate has no choice in the matter while appearing in court, and
will not be permitted to appear if incorrectly attired. The question
may be asked, why is it that the various dress codes for barristers in
all these colonized countries mentioned, are made to be mandatory and
that a lawyer has no choice in the matter? In Nigeria, is this not an
infringement of the right to self expression? Why should a lawyer be
hindered from wearing any suit he finds suitable in so far as it is
neat and presentable? Is the Council of Legal Education Code of
Conduct not inconsistent with the express provisions of Section 39 our
Nigerian 1999 Constitution and therefore null and void? Again, where a
judge refused in court to hear out a female lawyer because she was in
a bright blouse, is it not an infringement of the lawyer's client's
right to fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution? In fact, in
Germany, it has been observed that lawyers wear their gowns over a
sweater and jeans, yet the cases being handled by these lawyers were
not presented less competently. The issue is that, it is not the garb
that makes a lawyer
Our 1999 constitution has guaranteed the right to freedom of
expression under Section 33, it therefore follows that the mandatory
dress code, as provided by the Council of Legal Education, is null and
void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution. If the
courts in America, frown at such violation of self-expression by the
mandatory dress code imposition of uniform dressing code on secondary
school students in America, how come lawyers in Nigeria are still
being denied the right to express themselves in a way they like? In
fact, as highlighted elsewhere in this write up, English lawyers are
no longer bound to appear in law dinners in the mandatory dark suits;
even the lawyer's judicial attire costume has been under serious
attack in England. Germany also has no specific dress code for
lawyers. It is submitted that it was high time our courts made
specific pronouncement on this dress code issue to avoid propagating
illegality in our judicial system. The continued retention of Lawyers'
dress code gives the impression that legal profession is a regimented
one. Our courts should not be seen as aiding illegality, moreover, it
was time we did away with these colonial relics, as it is not the
dress that makes a lawyer.
#abridged
By Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter)
Vol. 2, No.4; Nov. 2012
IFEMEJE SYLVIA, PhD,
UMEJIAKU NNEKA, LL.M,
NOSIKE C.O, LL.B,
No comments:
Post a Comment