You have heard that it was said to people long ago, ‘All lawyers are liars.’ But I tell you, all humans are liars, for it is an undisputed fact that everybody lies (some more than others), and lawyers would fall under this category only in the same way as there are false preachers; do not believe the myth that lawyers are buried upside down because of lies for it distracts you from one of the purposes of lawyers.
The Layperson’s Scenario
“Someone committed an offence, you know the person is guilty, but you will go to court and say the person is not guilty; why?”
Lawyers know this scenario, the Aha! Theory, proving that we are a brood of vipers, based on the few corruption cases that make the news (corruption is not the only crime in Nigeria); yet that is one ambit of the theory; this is the second ambit, said as a joke:
Now that I have a lawyer, I will start looking for trouble so that you will defend me.
Beneath the theory is the expectation that a lawyer will defend them in their time of trouble, forgetting that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It takes all the willpower in many lawyers not to roll their eyes or heave a deep sigh and shake their heads in pity.
Mob Rule, Jungle Justice and the Rights of Man
It is all fun and games until one understands this misconception against lawyers underscores the strict sense of justice laypersons hold, especially in criminal cases; proof of it is on social media: a person accused of doing wrong will, most times, not have a chance to say their side of the story. The proof is also in the streets: a person seen doing wrong is meted justice without mercy – an eye for an eye and sometimes a tooth for a neck; society seems to function as though false accusation is non-existent by our flawed humanity or that there may be more than one side to a story; neither does it matter that simplistic retribution may cost a person their inalienable and indissoluble rights, nor that the person under the hammer of justice is a fellow citizen.
At a time in history when Rome dominated the known world, there was nothing better than being a Roman citizen. Civis Romanus Sum was all a citizen declared to get justice in determining their rights and liabilities, including the right to legal representation, appeal to the emperor, in person, concerning any capital charges against them, amongst other rights and privileges – the proof is in the trial and execution of Jesus (a non-citizen of Rome (Matthew 27: 11 – 26)) compared to the trial of Paul the Apostle (a citizen of Rome by birth (Acts 25)).
The idea behind the declaration Civis Romanus Sum was extended in the Don Pacifico affair when Lord Palmerston made these remarks:
Just as a Roman could claim his rights anywhere in the world with the words, “Civis Romanus sum” (“I am a Roman citizen”), “so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong.
I have read articles and heard comments from fellow Nigerians about the failure of the watchful eye and strong arm of Nigeria to protect Nigerians abroad from injustice and wrong; they are correct, but should not the watchful eye and strong arm of Nigeria protect Nigerians at home from injustice, even if it is on an allegation of corruption?
Lying or the Right to Fair Hearing?
It is a Fundamental Right for every Nigerian citizen to receive a fair hearing, especially in criminal cases, because section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (The Constitution) presumes every person is innocent until proved guilty.
The right to a Fair hearing is based on the legal maxim: audi alterem partem (hear the other side), ensured by our adversarial system of justice that places the onus of proof on the person accusing (prosecution) to prove the accused person committed an offence. This burden of proof on the prosecution is principal and static: a failure to discharge this burden will not be remedied by the weak defence of the accused. There is also a burden of proof on an accused if such a person pleads insanity; a successful plea of insanity means that the person lacked the intention (which is a necessary ingredient for culpability) to commit the offence.
Offences and Defences
An offence is an act or omission done in a particular state of mind that is punishable by law; it has two elements which lawyers are familiar with –actus reus (guilty action or inaction) and mens rea (guilty mind). Most offences have specific actus reus and mens rea that must co-exist for a person to be guilty in the courts of law (a few offences are strict liability offences that do not require mens rea, for example, road traffic offences.)
It is understandable that laypersons, in their quest for justice, know only the actus reus: I saw a man kill another man, but a lawyer defending such a man must ask these questions: was it intentional, was there foreknowledge of the outcome, was it a negligent act, was it a reckless act, was it an accident, or did it happen in a state of unconsciousness? An answer to any or all of these questions will determine the defences open to the accused; some defences include: accident, intoxication, insanity, provocation, etc.
Applying some of these defences does not imply complete exoneration; a successful plea of provocation by a person accused of murder may result in a variation of charge: manslaughter, and the sentence: life imprisonment instead of capital punishment.
For clarity, people can defend themselves without procuring the services of a barrister, but that is unwise in practice because of the rules of procedure and evidence; in criminal cases, legal representation is necessary in cases of treason, murder, armed robbery, rape, etc., because the right to life is at stake in these cases; indigent accused persons are entitled to a lawyer under the Legal Aid scheme (Section 36 (6) of the Constitution).
Justice is a Three-Way Traffic
One of the dictums of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that explains Nigerian criminal justice philosophy is from the words of the late Honourable Justice Chukwudifu Oputa in Josiah v. The State [1985]1 NWLR (Pt. 1) p. 97:
Justice is not a one-way traffic: It is not justice for the appellant only. Justice is not even only a two-way traffic. It is really a three-way traffic – justice for the appellant accused of a heinous crime of murder; justice for the victim, the murdered man, the deceased, ‘whose blood is crying out to heaven for vengeance’ and finally, justice for society at large – the society whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the criminal act complained of.
Ministers in the Temple of Justice
Every Nigerian deserves justice, meaning that in deciding their fate, especially when life or liberty is at stake, the correct procedure is followed; there is more to justice than simple right and wrong, and it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
We should all be thankful for the legal profession and court systems that exist because of the evolution of human societies; and also be grateful that even as the world rapidly declines into a Hobbesian state of nature, the legal profession and court systems still exist to protect the rights of every person.
It is true some lawyers work contrary to their duties as ministers in the temple of justice, it is also true that there are questions about the integrity of the justice system, but the sacred duty of trial lawyers to defend an accused is not reduced by the failure of a few.
The Lawyer’s Scenario
Imagine you are driving on the road, and for a moment, you take your eyes away, and then a dead child is under your car.
“It was an accident –
“Where did the child come from?” You asked, bewildered.
You did not intend to kill the child; it has been a rough morning, but no one is listening; all they saw was your car hitting the child; the swift and short arm of jungle justice ringed a tire around you; someone is holding a jerry can of petrol and, someone has called for matches.
Or
Imagine someone you love is in a fight, and you run to separate them; the other person is relentless, so you strike a deathly blow; he is dead on the floor because of you; pandemonium follows as bystanders gather, the family members come too but refuse to see reason; the putrid smell of the police cell woke you up the following morning, and a charge is being drawn up against you as you ponder over your intentions with God.
Would you want a lawyer to say you are not guilty? If yes, someone else needs a lawyer to say they are not guilty.
Joanna Bome Kure 
Leave a comment