NBA Knocks Ofili-Ajumogobia, Nwogu For Detaining Lawyers

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has condemned the actions of two judges, Justices Chinwendu Nwogu of the Rivers State High Court and Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court, Abuja, over the detention of legal practitioners, describing the incidents as an abuse of judicial authority and a threat to the rule of law.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN) said the association received with “utmost shock” reports of lawyers being bullied and unlawfully detained in courtrooms, warning that such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession.

“Judges must not bully lawyers or abuse the power to punish for contempt as a tool for intimidation,” Osigwe said.

The first incident, according to the NBA, occurred during proceedings in Suit No. PHC/301/2016, Mr. Bodiseowei Zidougha v. The Chief of Naval Staff & 2 Ors, before Justice Nwogu of the Rivers State High Court.

The judge was said to have convicted and ordered the detention of defence counsel, Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin, after delivering judgment in the matter.

The court reportedly held the lawyer in contempt for allegedly making false statements and imputations against the court in a written address filed on behalf of her clients—the Chief of Naval Staff and the Nigerian Navy.

In a separate incident, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia was said to have summarily ordered the detention of Mr. Martin Anyanwu, a legal officer at the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi, in the court’s holding facility on March 25, 2026.

Reacting, the NBA described the actions of the judges as “unfair” and “exceedingly high-handed,” stressing that they run contrary to the principles guiding the exercise of contempt powers.

“The actions as well as the procedures adopted by the judges fly in the face of the rationale for punishment for contempt, which is to vindicate the dignity of the court and protect the due administration of justice,” the statement read.

“The actions appear to have been taken rather to bolster the power and dignity of each of the judges as individuals.”

The association warned that the misuse of contempt powers could instill fear in both lawyers and litigants, thereby eroding the foundation of fair trial.

“A judge’s invocation of his power to punish for contempt of his court is an unwarranted exhibition of naked judicial power which puts counsel and their clients in fear of the court and erodes an important safeguard of fair trial,” Osigwe stated.

The NBA further clarified that not every act of discourtesy or disagreement by counsel amounts to contempt of court, urging judges to distinguish between professional conduct that may be unpleasant and actions that genuinely obstruct justice.

“It is not a contempt of court to criticise the conduct of a judge or the court, even if such criticism is strongly worded, provided it is fair, temperate, and made in good faith,” the statement added.

According to the association, the reported incidents point to a growing pattern of judicial overreach and intolerance within the courts, warning that such tendencies could damage the long-standing relationship between the Bench and the Bar.

“The administration of justice rests on a delicate but enduring partnership between the Bench and the Bar, one built not on fear but on mutual respect, restraint, and a shared commitment to the rule of law,” Osigwe said.

“When judicial authority is exercised in a manner that intimidates, humiliates, or suppresses counsel, the courtroom ceases to be a temple of justice and risks becoming a theatre of fear.”

The NBA emphasised that where a lawyer’s conduct is deemed improper, the appropriate course of action is to refer the matter to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) rather than resorting to summary punishment.

“Summary remand in such circumstances is disproportionate and amounts to a denial of fair hearing,” the association noted.

The body also stressed that the power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary jurisdiction that must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the administration of justice is under immediate threat.

“The contempt jurisdiction exists to protect the court, not to silence counsel or penalise advocacy undertaken in the discharge of professional duty,” the NBA said.

Consequently, the association demanded the immediate release of the affected lawyers and called for investigations into the incidents.

It urged the Chief Judge of Rivers State to probe the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Benjamin’s detention and take appropriate administrative action, while also calling on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to initiate disciplinary measures where necessary.

The NBA further threatened to boycott proceedings before Justice Nwogu’s court for seven days if Mrs. Benjamin is not released within 24 hours.

“That all NBA branches in Port Harcourt and its environs, and all legal practitioners, boycott proceedings before the court of Hon. Justice Nwogu for a period of seven days if Mrs. Lovinah is not released within 24 hours,” the statement read.

Additionally, the association directed its Human Rights Institute to monitor the situation, engage relevant authorities, and ensure the protection of the fundamental rights of the affected lawyers.

The NBA said it would also liaise with the National Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to address what it described as an emerging pattern of judicial overreach and to reinforce standards of judicial temperament.

“The courtroom must remain a forum of law, not intimidation; of reason, not fear,” Osigwe stressed. “The authority of the court is best preserved through fairness, restraint, and fidelity to the rule of law.”