The role of law officers to the judiciary

Conceptually, the term “Law Officer”, simply connotes and encompasses all Lawyers serving with the Ministry of Justice of both Federal and States, whether employed, deployed or appointed. Thus, reflecting on the office organogram, the status covers the Attorney General (Minister/Commissioner for Justice), who is the Chief Law Officer of the Federation/State; the Solicitor-General, who is usually the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice; the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), who is in charge of Criminal Prosecution and related matter liaising with the Attorney General and other lawyers operating as State Counsel in various ranks, such as Chief State Counsel, Principal State Counsel, Senior State Counsel, and State Counsel. They are also known as ‘Government Lawyers’.

On the other hand, the judiciary connotes and encompasses the various Courts operating in hierarchical order from the Trial/Lower Courts at both Federal and States level, through the supervisory Appellate Court (Court of Appeal), to the Apex Court – the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The inter-relationship between the law officer and the Judiciary is intertwined. The law officer and the Judiciary constitute the rare breed of the same stock of the legal profession- Lawyers called to the Bar and enrolled as legal practitioners (Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria); the threshold of legal career in Nigeria.



Whereas, lawyers operating in the Ministry of Justice are Civil Servants, those elevated to the Bench serving in the courts are judicial officers, but both are career public servants in statutory employment. They are all working with the same mandate of pursuing interest of justice and the cause of justice- the twin philosophical tenets for enthroning rule of law and good governance. The Judiciary has also served as a crystalising career pathway for many Law Officers in the Ministry of Justice, as many law officers in the Ministry of Justice (Federal/State) end up becoming Judges working in the Judiciary.

The relationship between thelaw officer and the judiciary is indeed synergistic, as law officers being legal practitioners enjoy the privilege of the toga: ‘Ministers in the Temple of Justice’. The Law Officers Association of Nigeria (LOAN) is a witness of the endearing relationship and effective discharge of the judicial duties in the interest of justice. Recall that LOAN itself is a baby of the judiciary, as its legal status owes its origin to the success in the litigation challenging the refusal to grant LOAN independent registration as a Trade Union in Nigeria.

In the celebrated case of Yusuf Abdullahi Abdulkadir, Esq & Ors. v. Minister of Labour & Employment & Ors (Suit No.

NICN/AK/04/2022, Judgment delivered on 16th May 2023), the Law Officers Association of Nigeria (LOAN) successfully challenged the non-registration of LOAN as a Trade Union and got the registration by the judicial assent of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. In inter-arms of government relations, it is the office of the Attorney General, the Chief Law Officer that is positioned to be interfacing with the Judiciary, as the Attorney General’s Chambers warehouses lawyers in the Ministry of Justice, in the same manner as the Judiciary, being the only arm of government solely manned by one profession of law. The understanding is expectedly presumed.

Thus, the office of the Attorney General serves as the liaison between the Judiciary and the other arms of government, especially the executive. The judiciary on its part recognises the prime place of the Law Officers and relationship of agencies of the government driven from the Constitution. In Lafia Local Govt.

v. Gov, Nasarawa State [2012]17NWLR (Pt.1328) SC94 @P.

144, paras.B-C, the Supreme Court stated thus: “The courts have pronounced that all agencies of government are organs of initiative whose powers are derived either directly from the Constitution or from laws enacted thereunder. They therefore, stand in relationship to the Constitution as it permits their existence and functions.

” Ethical and professional standards required of law officers in court All Law Officers, with exception of the Attorney General (with combined portfolio of Minister/Commissioner for Justice) is a career Civil Servant, out-staying the Attorney General, who is a political-Appointee of the Chief Executive (President/Governor), subject to possession of requisite legal qualification and experience as stipulated in the Constitution. Yet the Law Officers are not ordinary Civil Servants bound only by Civil Service Rules. They are also subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) as lawyers in ‘Official Bar’ (Red seal lawyers).

Thus, being a professional in the highly regulated profession of law and holding enviable position as State counsel (government lawyer) and being ‘Barrister’ in the midst of other core Civil Servants in the Government Departments and Ministries, the responsibilities are daunting and expected standard of conduct and efficiency in service are not same and comparable to mere Administrative Staff or other professionals in service. The legal profession being a highly regulated and impactful profession comes with many ethical rules and societal expectations of good conduct. Invariably, bad behaviour which amounts to misconduct under the Civil Service Rules which can ground disciplinary sanction of removal from office, can also ground de-barring of counsel, thereby amounting to risk of double jeopardy exposure.

Law Officers must therefore carry on the law practice in Courts, exhibiting high level of ethical standards, professional excellence and due diligence in practice. For instance, the usual tardiness of some counsel should not be found among Law Officers, who are christened in ranked title of ‘State Counsel’. Law officer should be abreast of the business of the Court.

The experience with some Law Officers smacks of seriousness to defend suits against the State, believing that the Court owes an obligation to remind them of the case they handle in Court. In Y.A.

M. Co. Plc.

v. All Motors (Nig.) Plc [2011] 14 NWLR (Pt.

1269) C.A. 108@ (P.

133, paras. E-F, the Court laid down the best practice thus: “Once the preliminaries of a case have been completed, namely service of writ, entry of appearances, it is the duty of counsel to keep themselves abreast of the business of the court. A counsel, therefore, cannot be heard to complain that he was not aware of the date a case was fixed for hearing.

In this case, the appellants were given ample opportunity to defend the suit but they failed to do so. They treated the trial court with levity and lackadaisical attitude in defending the suit despite its magnanimity to them. Therefore, they had no reason to complain”.

Also, concise writing skill and prowess in written advocacy are expectations from the Law Officers conducting cases in the Court, as Judges do commend or lampoon excellent or poor exhibition of writing skills among lawyers. In Baitach v. Shadafi [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt.

1317) C.A. 396@ (Pp.

412-413, paras.G-A, the duty on counsel while writing a brief/Final Addresses was underscored thus: “It is the duty of a counsel whilst writing a written submission or brief to present a party’s case in a summary form, with accuracy and lucidity to give the court and the adverse party in advance a deep insight into the party’s case. The argument must contain the propositions of law or fact or both which a counsel wishes to propel his case.

Therefore, where a written address or brief is well articulated, precise and strong, submissions made on law and facts, there is nothing that prohibits a court from commending the format and effort of counsel in producing such an address. In the same vein, when a written address contains an uncoordinated argument it can be frowned at”. To be continued tomorrow.

Ogbuanya, a judge of the National Industrial Court, presented this at the 2024 Law Week of the Law Officers Association of Nigeria (LOAN) Imo State Branch..