In a climate of heightened scrutiny and controversy, lawyers representing clients in detention have increasingly turned to public platforms to voice their frustrations. Often, these legal advocates engage in a campaign of rhetoric aimed at garnering public sympathy by criticizing government actions and the agencies that they believe is responsible for holding their clients. I will liken this to the advent of “Pinocchio lawyer" a term that evokes the image of the infamous wooden puppet whose nose grows longer with each lie—raises important questions about the ethics of legal representation and the line between zealous advocacy and deception.
Recently, Aloy Ejimakor, lead counsel for Nnamdi Kanu, took to social media, employing emotionally charged language to portray his client as a victim of an overreaching government. He released video footage alleging that the Department of State Services, DSS blocked Kanu’s legal team from accessing him, while inadvertently portraying the agency and other law enforcement bodies as untrustworthy.
While such strategies may aim to rally public opinion and influence the judicial process, they raise critical questions about the balance between legitimate advocacy and sensationalism. Critics argue that while it is essential for lawyers to defend their clients vigorously, resorting to public attacks on the government can detract from substantive legal arguments.
It can also be recalled that during the last trial the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB at the Federal High Court in Abuja, Justice Binta Nyako, recused herself from the trial. Reports suggest Nnamdi Kanu and his legal team expressed a lack of confidence in the court's ability to conduct a fair trial. Despite this, Ejimakor attempted to persuade the court to suspend proceedings, arguing that his client had been denied the opportunity to adequately prepare his defense.
The Pinocchio analogy is particularly apt here. Just as Pinocchio’s lies transformed him from a simple wooden puppet into a creature of deception, lawyers who indulge in hyperbolic claims risk distorting the truth of their cases. By portraying clients as victims of an overreaching system or by fabricating narratives about legal injustices, these lawyers not only undermine the integrity of their profession but also jeopardize the pursuit of justice.
Moreover, this tactic can create a paradox where the very public sympathy sought may lead to a backlash. In some cases, the rhetoric employed can be perceived as an attempt to undermine the government, security agencies, and the legal system in the land, potentially alienating potential supporters who value justice and due process. As the public becomes increasingly aware of these strategies, there is a risk that they may grow weary of the constant barrage of accusations, leading to skepticism regarding the motivations of those seeking to garner sympathy.
As Nigeria's legal landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial for legal practitioners to reflect on their methods. Striking a balance between effective advocacy and maintaining respect for the legal system is essential in serving both the public and their clients while upholding the principles of truth and justice.
Ifeanyi Okonkwo writes from Port Harcourt, Rivers State.