LSP081: Contempt of Court

On a personal disposition, no one reasonably likes to be disparaged especially in the public. This stance also extends to judges in the administration of justice. In AG v Leveller Magazine Ltd. [1979] AC 440, Lord Diplock opined that “it is justice itself that is flouted by contempt of court, not the individual court or judge who is attempting to administer it.”

Contempt of court is any act or conduct which interferes with the course of justice and tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect. Statutorily, it is a simple offence under Section 133 and 6 of both Criminal and Penal Codes respectively. Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three months.

In Ezenwankwo v State 2015 2 NWLR (Pt. 1443) 265, the court held that the twin elements of contempt of court are interference and disrespect. In the same vein, in Odu v Jolaoso (2005) 16 NWLR (pt.950) 178, contempt was said to: “embrace such invidious acts as an insult or unsavory comments with very sinister motives against a Court with a view to denigrating the Court and smear, besmirch its nobility, its majesty, its aura, its responsibility, or indulging in an expressive sinister and offensive act or words that would lower the esteem of the Court in the eyes of the public.”

Furthermore, contempt of court is usually classified as either criminal or civil. While criminal contempt consists of words or acts which obstruct or tend to interfere with the administration of justice, civil contempt consists of disobedience to judgment, orders, or other processes of the court. The catalogue of conducts that are contemptuous in and out of the court is not exhaustive.

In addition, the modes of contempt can, basically, be divided into two categories namely:

1. contempt in facie curiae otherwise known as contempt in the face of the court.
2. contempt ex facie curiae otherwise known as contempt outside the court.

Contempt in facie curiae 

This is contempt in the face of the Court and it is punishable summarily for the sake of maintaining the dignity and the authority of the Court. Under this category, there is no need to call for evidence of what transpired, because it happened in the immediate view of the Court. 

As to the procedure, several judicial authorities such as Agbachom v State (1970)1 All NLR 69 and Atake v AG Federation (1981) 3 NCLR 66 have enunciated the steps in which the court must follow before it can hold an accused guilty for the offence of contempt in facie curiae. These are:

1. the court should put the accused in the dock; 
2. the court should state the accused’s offence specifically and distinctly, and
3.  the Court should ask the accused to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. 

It is pertinent to state that the alleged contemnor must not be put in the witness box, for putting him in the witness box is tantamount to compelling him to give evidence and this clearly offends against the provisions of Section 36(11) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which states that no person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial. 

Contempt ex facie curiae 

As earlier mentioned, this is a type of contempt committed outside the court. Unlike contempt in facie curiae where the offender can be apprehended and punished right there in the court without the necessity of framing any charge, taking plea, or calling any witness, in ex facie curiae, the normal procedure of issue of warrant, arrest, drafting of charge, taking of plea, calling of witnesses, etc. must be followed.

In both categories, failure to follow the laid down procedures will lead to the nullity of the proceeding. The rationale behind this is that where a man’s liberty is at stake, every requirement of the law must be strictly complied with. Lee v. Walker (1985)1 All ER 781 at 786, Dibia v Igwe(1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 564) 78.

The procedure for this category is statutorily governed by the provisions of Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, LFN 2004 which states that “if any person refuses or neglects to comply with an order made against him, other than for payment of money, the court, instead of dealing with him as a judgment debtor guilty of the misconduct defined in Paragraph (f) of section 66 of this Act, may order that he be committed to prison and detained in custody until he has obeyed the order in all things that are to be immediately performed.”

At this juncture, it is noteworthy that the power of the court to punish the contemnor must be reasonably exercised. It shouldn’t be used as an instrument of vendetta. In Deduwa v. State (1975) 1 All NLR, the Supreme Court held that: “the power to commit is not retained for the personal aggrandisement of a judge or whoever mans the court. The powers are created, maintained, and retained for the purpose of preserving the honour and dignity of the court and so the judge holds the power on behalf of the court and by the tradition of his office, he should eschew any type of temperamental outburst as would let him lose his own control of the situation and his own appreciation of the correct method of procedure.”

Moving on, the position of the law is that when an alleged contempt is committed ex-facie curiae, a judge who is personally involved should not hear the case but another judge. This is to upload one of the principles of fair hearing which is that no one can be a judge in his own case. 

The Effiong’s Case

As narrated by the lawyer on his Twitter page, the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Obot on Wednesday, July 27, 2022 committed him to the state correctional centre for one month over what she described as contemptuous behaviour in the court. 

Several questions are up here:

1. Did the lawyer actually give us the full story of what transpired in Court? Was his action contemptuous or not? Ascertaining this is germane because more often than not, the first person who rushes to social media to report a wrong is not always the innocent.
2. Since the contempt was in face of the court, did Milord follow the requirements of the law or was this power arbitrarily exercised?

These are the questions that I don’t have answers to because I wasn’t in Court. As such, since we are not privy to the full story, we must refrain from passing a verdict. Nevertheless, what we are certain of is that the law won’t excuse a wrong without a remedy. As such, if upon the effluxion of the one-month imprisonment, the concerned lawyer can always seek available remedy at his disposal. Till then, we would be watching. 

In conclusion, the rationale for contempt is the need to vindicate the dignity of the Court and thereby protect the due administration of justice. The doctrine places a duty on everyone including legal practitioners not to act in ways as to bring disrepute to the court and justices of law. 

Thank you for reading. See you next week.