Introduction
The question whether a holder of the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) can appear before a Magistrate Court has generated legal debate in Nigeria, especially in view of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act and certain State laws regulating Magistrate Courts.
The Nigerian Court of Appeal revisited this issue in ATIKU-ABUBAKAR v. BOLORI,where the Court reaffirmed the position that the rules regulating Senior Advocates of Nigeria restrict their appearance before inferior courts, notwithstanding provisions of State laws permitting all legal practitioners to appear before Magistrate Courts.
The Legal Framework Regulating Senior Advocates of Nigeria
The rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria is governed principally by the Legal Practitioners Act.
Section 5(7) of the Legal Practitioners Actprovides:
“The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee may, with the approval of the Body of Benchers, make rules as to the privileges to be accorded to Senior Advocates of Nigeria, as to the functions of a legal practitioner, which are not to be performed by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, as to the mode of appearance before courts by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and generally, but without prejudice to the foregoing, for ensuring the dignity of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.”
Pursuant to this provision, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (Privileges and Functions) Rules were made to regulate the conduct and mode of appearance of Senior Advocates in courts across Nigeria.
The controversy usually arises because some State laws, including the Magistrates’ Courts Law of Lagos State, provide that every legal practitioner, regardless of rank or title, may appear before Magistrate Courts.
For instance, Section 9 of the Magistrates’ Courts Law of Lagos State states:
“Notwithstanding any custom or practice, all legal practitioners called to the Bar in Nigeria are entitled, regardless of conferment, title or rank, to appear in any Magistrate Court in the State.”
This created the question whether a SAN can rely on such State legislation to appear in Magistrate Courts despite the restrictions contained in the SAN Rules.
The Decision in ATIKU-ABUBAKAR v. BOLORI
In ATIKU-ABUBAKAR v. BOLORI, the Court of Appeal considered this issue extensively.
The Court held that the SAN Rules remain binding on holders of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria and that the Rules were specifically made pursuant to statutory authority under the Legal Practitioners Actto preserve the dignity of the rank.
The Court stated as follows:
“……..In the case of The Registered Trustees of the ECWA Church vs. Ijesha, supra, this Court held that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria has no right of audience in the Upper Area Court, being an inferior Court, the decision was arrived at by the combined construction of Rules 2, 3, 4 & 6 of the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (Privileges and Functions) Rules made pursuant to Section 5 (7) of its enabling law, the Legal Practitioners Act……..”
“……..It is my considered view that the SAN’s Rules, the relevant part of which were reproduced in the preceding portion of this judgment, were made to regulate the conduct of the practice of the holders of the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and the holders are bound by same……..”
“……..It appears clearly enough that this provision of the LPA recognizes the legality of the SAN’s Rules and I cannot see anything unconstitutional in the provision of rules 2 (1), 3, and 4 together with rule 6 of the SAN Rules which regulates the mode of appearance before Courts by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and for ensuring the dignity of the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria……..”
“……..It is therefore clear that the law as stated by this Court in the case of Registered Trustees of ECWA Church vs. Ijesha, supra, remains the correct position to which the lower Court and the Court of first instance are bound to follow under the doctrine of stare decisis……..”
Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA in ATIKU-ABUBAKAR v. BOLORI (2024) LPELR-61900(CA) at pp. 34–38, paras. B–B.
Reliance on Earlier Authorities
The Court relied heavily on the earlier decision in:
- The Registered Trustees of the ECWA Church v. Ijesha
- Attorney-General of Rivers State v. Attorney-General of Akwa Ibom State (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31
- Chanchangi Airlines (Nig.) Ltd v. AP Plc (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 256
- Adesokan & Ors v. Adetunji & Ors (1994) LPELR-129(SC)
The Court emphasized the doctrine of stare decisis and held that lower courts remain bound by existing appellate authorities on the issue.
Why the Court Rejected the Appellant’s Argument
The appellant argued that because the Magistrates’ Courts Law of Lagos State allows all legal practitioners to appear before Magistrate Courts regardless of rank, a SAN should also be permitted to appear.
However, the Court rejected this argument on the basis that:
- The Magistrates’ Courts Law regulates the practice and procedure of Magistrate Courts generally.
- The SAN Rules regulate the conduct and professional obligations of Senior Advocates specifically.
- The Legal Practitioners Act expressly empowers the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee to make rules regulating the functions and mode of appearance of SANs.
- The restrictions imposed by the SAN Rules are part of the obligations attached to the rank.
The Court further observed that the privileges attached to the SAN rank come with corresponding responsibilities and limitations.
Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners
The implication of the decision in ATIKU-ABUBAKAR v. BOLORI is that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria is generally not expected to appear before inferior courts such as Magistrate Courts or Upper Area Courts unless the applicable Rules are amended or a contrary decision is delivered by the Supreme Court.
The decision also reinforces the supremacy of the Legal Practitioners Act and the SAN Rules in matters relating specifically to the privileges, functions, and mode of appearance of Senior Advocates of Nigeria.
Conclusion
The present position of the law, as reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in ATIKU-ABUBAKAR v. BOLORI,is that the Rules regulating Senior Advocates of Nigeria restrict their appearance before inferior courts, including Magistrate Courts, notwithstanding State laws permitting legal practitioners generally to appear in such courts.
Until there is legislative amendment or a contrary pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the decision remains binding authority on the issue.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or solicitor-client representation. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal practitioner for professional advice relating to their specific circumstances.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.