Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer at protest ground: A case of professional misconduct, by Alaba Odeyemi

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

The Nigerian legal profession is guided by ethical principles designed to protect both justice and the integrity of the judicial process. One of the most important of these principles is enshrined in Rule 33 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for Legal Practitioners 2023, which prohibits lawyers from making extra-judicial statements or taking actions that could influence the outcome of a pending case.

The recent appearance of Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer at a protest ground advocating for his client raises serious concerns about professional ethics and may constitute a clear breach of this rule.

Understanding Rule 33: The Sub Judice Principle
The sub judice rule ensures that cases before the court remain insulated from public or political interference. Rule 33 explicitly states:

“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 extra-judicial statement that is calculated to prejudice or interfere with, or is reasonably capable of prejudicing or interfering with, the fair trial of the matter or the judgment or sentence.”

In simple terms, lawyers handling an active case must not engage in any public commentary, media appearance, or protest that could be seen as influencing judicial proceedings. The rule is not about silencing lawyers; it is about preserving the impartiality of justice.

Courtroom, Not the Streets.

The legal profession demands that lawyers argue their cases in court, not in the court of public opinion. By joining a public protest about a case in which they are counsel, a lawyer risks appearing to pressure the judiciary or manipulate public perception.

Whether the protest is peaceful or not is irrelevant. What matters is the perception and potential impact such an act might have on the fair administration of justice. A lawyer’s duty is to maintain professional detachment and rely on the strength of their legal arguments — not on public sentiment.

A Clear Line Crossed.

Every Nigerian has a constitutional right to free expression and peaceful assembly under Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). However, a lawyer’s professional obligations impose an extra layer of restraint. When a lawyer protests on behalf of their own client, a conflict of ethical interest arises.

If the lawyer felt morally compelled to participate in such a protest, the proper and ethical course of action would have been to withdraw from the case beforehand. Continuing to act as counsel while publicly advocating for the same client crosses a professional line and undermines confidence in the justice system.

The Law Is Not Emotional

The practice of law is founded on objectivity, not emotion. A lawyer’s duty is to remain a disciplined advocate within the bounds of legality, even when representing clients in politically charged or sensitive cases.

By appearing at a protest ground for his client, the lawyer not only blurred professional boundaries but also risked violating Rule 33, which prohibits conduct “reasonably capable of prejudicing or interfering with” a fair trial — regardless of intent.

Consequences and Responsibility

If such conduct is left unchecked, it could set a dangerous precedent where public demonstrations replace courtroom advocacy. The result would be a justice system vulnerable to mob influence and political manipulation — something the RPC seeks to prevent.

The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has the authority to investigate and sanction lawyers for professional misconduct. In this case, if found guilty, the lawyer could face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to disbarment. As the maxim goes, ignorantia juris non excusat — ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for a legal practitioner.

Conclusion
The protest by Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer, while perhaps motivated by passion or solidarity, represents a lapse in professional judgment. In choosing to advocate from the protest ground instead of the courtroom, he crossed a clear ethical line defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The law must remain neutral, objective, and unswayed by emotion or public pressure — and it is the duty of every lawyer to uphold that standard.
The courtroom, not the street, is where justice must be sought and defended.

–Odeyemi is a legal practitioner