On Monday, Justice Tijani Ringim of a Federal High Court in Lagos declined to hear the two cases of human rights attorney Malcolm Omihrhobo, who wore a lawyer’s gown and ‘local doctor’ garb to court.
The attorney was likewise barefoot and had cowries tied around his legs. His wig was adorned with two long feathers, cowries in his two hands, and a scarlet ribbon while he wore a lawyer’s gown.
The human rights attorney who appeared before Justice Ringim was met with opposition from other attorneys who disapproved of his attire before the court, stating that he could not be heard because he was not dressed as a lawyer.
Omihrhobo, who on Thursday caused a sensation at the Supreme Court in Abuja by arriving in court in the same manner, stated that it would be a breach of his right not to be heard, noting that the regulations could not take precedence over the country’s constitution.
He said, “My Lord, the rules cannot supersede the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Upon his argument, Justice Ringim, however directed Omihirhobo to address the court on why he should be heard the way he was dressed on the next adjourned date in a suit delineated to FHC/L/CS/929/2022; (Chief Malcolm Omihrhobo) sued the Federal Government of Nigeria and others.
The same happened in his second suit marked FHC/L/CS/1392/2021 against the Nigeria Army and two others before the same court.
The court ordered that the address must not be more than five pages with the authorities, and must be filed before the adjourned date.
When his case was called, he announced his appearance as the applicant and some lawyers, Abdullah Dania, Mohammed Adamu and one Festus Afeyodion, told court that he should not be heard as he was not properly robbed.
Dania said, “I am a lawyer, my Lord can imagine the way my learned friend appears before the court as a professional. The rules that govern us as a lawyer do not allow improper dressing.”
Adamu told the court that he would like to furnish the court with his written submission in line with the direction of the court.
The judge said, “You cannot address the court like this as a professional. I will adjourn your matter and you come and address the court if the rules allow you to appear in court like this.”
Consequently, the judge adjourned to October 10, 2022.
