HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERING MUST NOT BE REDUCED TO EGO CONTESTS

By Frank Tietie

The unfortunate events surrounding the aborted hearing of the bail application filed on behalf of Justice Crack are deeply troubling and represent a sad commentary on the administration of justice in matters affecting personal liberty and fundamental human rights.

While a lawyer who has authority to withdraw an application scheduled for hearing before a court may determine who leads a team of counsel, no lawyer possesses the unilateral authority to withdraw an application already filed on behalf of a client without the express consent and instruction of that client.

Accordingly, it was wrong for the court to have permitted the withdrawal of the bail application filed on behalf of Justice Crack by Marshall Abubakar, Esq., unless there was clear authorisation from Justice Crack himself consenting to such withdrawal. The implication of that development is grave because it further delayed the hearing of the application of a man who has already endured prolonged detention.

Equally disappointing was the conduct of every lawyer present who failed to oppose the withdrawal of the application. By allowing arguments over seniority, representation, and professional hierarchy to overshadow the urgent necessity of securing the liberty of an oppressed citizen, the entire defence team failed in its sacred duty to the cause of justice.

The position becomes even more disturbing when viewed against the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, which clearly empower the court to adopt written addresses already before it even where counsel elect not to orally move an application. In other words, there was absolutely no justification for allowing avoidable disputes among counsel to frustrate proceedings in a matter fundamentally concerning liberty and human dignity.

Human rights litigation is not a platform for personal glory, ego contests, or professional grandstanding. It is a solemn calling that demands self-effacement, sacrifice, austerity, discipline, and unwavering commitment to the protection of the human person above all else. Lawyers who undertake human rights causes must constantly remember that the suffering client and not the lawyer’s prestige remains the true centre of every struggle for justice.

The development at the court over such an insignificant procedural disagreement has understandably generated public concern and disappointment. I therefore call on the Comrade-President, Omoyele Sowore, in his capacity as the avowed defender of the oppressed as well as the family of Justice Crack, to urgently take definitive steps regarding his legal representation in order to avoid any further setbacks capable of undermining the pursuit of justice in this matter.

The liberty of a citizen must never become collateral damage in professional rivalries among lawyers.

Frank Tietie, Esq.

Human Rights Lawyer &

Executive Director,

Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights (CASER)