Skit Makers and the Legal Profession: Legal Implications of Wearing Lawyer Robes (Wig & Gown) in Skits
Introduction
In the evolving world of content creation, skit-making has continued to be at the forefront; there is hardly any social media user who has not come across a skit. In the course of their performance or skit-making, they portray different characters to entertain the public; we often see a skit-maker imitate a pastor, lawyer, bar attendant, in the course of acting and making a skit.
There have been tons of skit makers who have continued to imitate a lawyer to make skits, some of whom are actually lawyers by profession, some are law students, and there are others who are neither lawyers nor law students but still undertake to make skits to perform as lawyers. For proper imitation of a lawyer, I suppose, most dress in wig and gown or full regalia of a lawyer, while some dress in a haggard manner, giving the impression that they are robed in lawyer attire.
Against all odds, the legal profession, being the profession of lawyer, is a noble one, and its nobility is protected by rules of conduct and relevant legislation. All actions of lawyers are being checked by the rules of conduct to ensure they conduct themselves in a manner that accords with the profession. Likewise, the Legal Practitioners Act does not give room for non-lawyers disparaging the legal profession while pretending to practice it.
“Counsel Announce Your appearance.
My Lord! Uhmm… I am Barrister Lasisi but I will like to go by atomic bomb because I am a case closer.
My Lord it is with utmost humility preference to profrence, that I recon to beruit here today…[1]”
The above was culled from a skit titled ‘Court!!!’ in Taooma ft. Lasisi Elenu & MC Lively, where Laisis Elenu (as widely called) was putting on a blue shirt, wig, and gown without the use of a bib and was addressing the so-called judge, who is robed in full regalia of a judge. This is a common instance of a skit maker acting as a lawyer while either fully robed or robed in a haggard manner.
See also: Constitutional Right to Protest
The focus of this work is not to deter a skit maker from acting as a lawyer in a skit but rather the legal implication of being robed with a wig and gown and acting in a manner derogatory of the legal profession or dressing haggardly with the impression of being robed. The scope of this work is within Nigeria context.
Skit Making in Nigeria
A skit according to Collins Dictionary ‘is a short performance in which the actors make fun of people, events and types of literature by imitating them’[2]. In essence, skit is a short form of acting that involves the skit maker imitating a class of people for the purpose of amusing the audience. This definition is not exhaustive, but for the purpose of this work, this definition will be employed.
According to Dataleum, a global talent accelerator, skit-making ranks as the third-largest entertainment industry in Nigeria, with a net worth surpassing ₦50 billion ($31.2 million)[3]. Notable skit makers in Nigeria include but not limited to: Nosa Afolabi better known as Lasisi Elenu; Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Ejekwu known as Mr Funny or Oga Sabinus; Maryam Apaokagi, known professionally as Taaooma; Michael Sani Amanesi known as MC Lively; Isaac Olayiwola, better known by the stage name Layi Wasabi[4], among others.
Legal Profession and Professional Conduct
The legal profession is the profession of legal practitioners. According to My Lord, Honourable Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, JSC, while defining the phrase ‘Legal Practitioner’ stated thus:
“This court has held to be a legal practitioner, that person that has been called to the bar to practice as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as provided in Section 2(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Legal Practitioners’ Act See; F. O. M. Atake v. Chief Nelson Asigboro Afejuku (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt.368) 379, (1994) LPELR – 585 (SC).” (Pp 65 – 65 Paras C – E)[5]
Before a person is called a legal practitioner or lawyer in Nigeria, such person must be called to the Nigeria Bar by the Body of Benchers, after which such person must have fulfilled all the requirements to be called to the bar.
Lawyer Robe
Aside from the professional training a lawyer or legal practitioner acquires, one distinguishing factor, or rather, an identity of a lawyer’s, is the wig and gown.
A lawyer robe is not a cloth a lawyer opts to wear when they deem fit, but it is an attire that must be compulsorily worn in certain circumstances. The Rule of professional conduct provides thus: ‘Except with the permission of the Court, a lawyer appearing before a High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court shall do so in his robes.[6]’
This is to say, except in exceptional circumstances, a lawyer must always appear in full robes before a court of superior records. Without being robed in a court of superior record, the court is not obliged to accord audience to the lawyer unless it is the court that permits the same. Ultimately, lawyer attire is a virtue, dignity, symbol, and dress code that are significant parts of the legal profession. Just like a camouflage is a crucial identity to the Armed forces, a lawyer’s attire signifies that they are minister in the temple of justice.
The rules of professional conduct that mandate the wearing of the robe are a rule that regulates the legal profession; derogating from the rules of conduct is tantamount to going out of the legal profession.
A complete outfit for a male legal practitioner is: a black two- or three-piece suit, a white collarless shirt, a white wing collar, sticky white bibs, and black shoes. In the alternative, white shirts with a winged collar attached in lieu of a collarless shirt; black and grey-stripped trousers in lieu of black trousers; sleeveless vests in lieu of coats.
For female legal practitioners: a black straight dress, a skirt and blouse or a skirt suit with a black short and white camisole. In addition to the dressing, the ladies will have a white collaret or white band and black shoes. The dress must be long-sleeved and high to the neck. All ladies dressing must be to a comfortable knee-length. In the alternative, the ladies could wear black and gray-stripped skirts.
This mode of dressing is applicable for appearance in all courts and tribunals. However, in the High Courts and other superior courts, counsel must be robed in a wig and gown in addition to the full attire.
The wig and gown must be clean and neat, not tattered or in shreds. Counsel must not remove the wig while the Court is in session except with the leave of the Court[7]. The Court may dispense with the robe if there is a good reason to do so.
The attire in contention in this work is the lawyer robe (wig and gown).
Wearing Lawyer Robes in Skits
There have been a lot of instances where skit makers put on lawyer robes in the making of their skit, to mention a few: ‘Court!!!’ starring Lasisi Elenu, MC Lively, and Taooma[8]; ‘Langbalangba’ starring Mr Macaroni, Lasis Elenu, Legal Juggernut, and Ekun[9]; ‘Battle of the Lawyers’ starring Mr Macaroni, Lasisi Elenu, MC Lively, Layi Wasabi, Otunba, and Timi Agbaje[10]; ‘Barrister Sabinus Meets a Beautiful Lawyer’ starring Oga Sabinus.[11]
This skit is obviously meant to be hilarious and entertaining; however, despite the creator’s purpose, this writer contends that the creator of the skit is expected to trade with caution while portraying a lawyer character.
It is important to point out that most of these skit makers, though not all, are lawyers, and by the rules, their robes are to be used in court of law and not in making skits. Even where the regulatory bodies of legal practitioners permit the use of robes in skits, they are expected to maintain the standard required of a legal practitioner.
A lawyer wearing a robe in the making of a skit, unless allowed by the bar council, may amount to misconduct and a non-lawyer wearing the same is liable under the Legal Practitioners Act.
Ethical and Legal Implications
Ethical considerations for lawyers and skit makers
In its bid to regulate the legal profession, the rules of professional conduct were enacted. The rules serve as the primary subsidiary legislation guiding practice of legal practitioners in Nigeria.
The court in Ukah & ORS v. Onyia & ORS[12] in addressing the purpose of Rules of Professional Conduct stated thus:
“The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) is made pursuant to S.11(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA). S. 11(4) of the LPA is certainly not enacted for the purposes of determining the validity or otherwise of commercial transactions. The RPC is made purely for disciplinary purposes. This point is accentuated by Rule 55(1) of the RPC which stipulates in clear terms, the means of enforcing the provisions of the RPC, including those of Rule 7(2)(b) of the RPC. Rule 55 (1) of the RPC provides as follows: “If a lawyer acts in contravention of any of the Rules in these Rules or fails to perform any of the duties imposed by the Rules, he shall be guilty of professional misconduct and liable to punishment as provided in the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975“. Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JCA (Pp 22 – 22 Paras A – E) Bold emphasis.
The above provision underlines the fact that the rules of professional conduct were established for disciplinary purposes for the legal practitioner and contravention of the rules comes with a sanction. This goes to say that even if a lawyer decides to take up skit-making, he is still expected to conduct himself in a manner that does not contravene the rules of conduct.
Rule 45[13] of the rules provide thus.
(1) Except with the permission of the Court, a lawyer appearing before a High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court shall do so in his robes.
(2) A lawyer shall not wear the Barrister’s or Senior Advocate’s robe —– (a) on any occasion other than in Court except as may be directed or permitted by the bar Council; or (b) When conducting his own case as party to a legal proceeding in Court; or (c) When giving evidence in a legal proceeding in Court.
This is the particular rule that addresses the wearing of a robe (wig and gown) by a lawyer. The rules mandate that a lawyer must be robed while appearing before the Superior Court of Record, and aside from appearing before a superior court, a lawyer is not expected to be robed on whatever occasion unless permitted by the bar council. The phrase “On any occasion other than in court, except as may be directed or permitted by the bar council,” underscores that a lawyer is not permitted to be robed in skit-making except as permitted by the bar council. This focus applies to a lawyer who is in the business of skit-making.
Base on my personal knowledge, there has not been any occasion where the Bar Council permitted lawyers to wear robe for the purpose of skit-making. For the record, the Bar Council is the ‘General Council of the Bar’.
No lawyer, for the purpose of skit-making, is permitted to derogate from Rule 45 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. If any lawyer acts in such a way, including making a skit while being robed, and consequently fails to uphold the dignity of the legal profession, such a practitioner may be found guilty and be liable for professional misconduct as provided in the Legal Practitioners Act[14]. See Ukah & ORS v. Onyia & ORS (supra.)
A lawyer is charged with a general responsibility to uphold and abide by the rule of law, promote and advance justice, maintain high standards of professional conduct, and refrain from engaging in any behavior unbecoming of a legal practitioner. Additionally, a lawyer must not knowingly perform any act, make any omission, or engage in any conduct aimed at facilitating the admission into the legal profession of an unsuitable individual due to moral character, lack of qualifications, or any other reason.[15]
It is the contention in this work that robing in the course of skit making may amount to misconduct, not amounting to infamous conduct, if, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee, the act ofrobing coupled with the manner in which the skit was acted is incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner.
Potential legal consequences and disciplinary actions
The application of the Legal Practitioner Act extend not only to legal practitioners but also to non-legal practitioners.
As contended, robing in the making of a skit may amount to misconduct, not amounting to infamous conduct, if, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee, it is incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner. By Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, any lawyer judged by the disciplinary committee to be guilty of misconduct not amounting to infamous conduct or conduct incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner in the opinion of the disciplinary committee, may be suspended or admonished as the committee may deem fit;
- Suspension: this mean, suspending that person from practice by ordering him not to engage in practice as a legal practitioner for such period as may be specified in the direction; or
- Admonishing (i.e., indicting) that person and any such direction may, where appropriate, include provisions requiring the refund of money paid, the handing over of documents or any other thing as the circumstances of the case may require.[16]
The Law does not define what misconduct is; however, according to Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) The word “misconduct” simply means – “A dereliction of duty; unlawful and improper behaviour[17].”
Misconduct must be adjudged by the Disciplinary Committee as incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner before any legal practitioner can be held liable. This means that if robing in skit is considered compatible with the status of a legal practitioner, then no skit-maker will be held liable.
This provision seeks to promote certain standards that must be kept in the legal profession in order for it to continue to command the respect of members of the public.
Furthermore, the law is an omnibus provision that covers all residual cases where the conduct complained of could prejudice members of the public against the profession. Cases like dressing haggardly while pretending to practice law, employment of very foul language in public and taking part in street brawls would appear likely to bring the profession into dishonor and disrepute.
What offence has non-lawyer committed while being robed in the course of skit-making?
Section 22[18] provide thus:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if any person other than a legal practitioner‐
(a) practices, or holds himself out to practice, as a legal practitioner; or
(b) takes or uses the title of legal practitioner; or
(c) wilfully takes or uses any name, title, addition or description falsely implying, or otherwise pretends, that he is a legal practitioner or is qualified or recognised by law to act as a legal practitioner; or
…
From the reading of subsection ‘c’ of this section, it can be deduced that a non-lawyer wearing a wig and gown in skit making amounts to pretending to be a legal practitioner or pretending to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria; therefore, Mr. Clown, who is not a lawyer but decides to put on a wig and gown while acting skit, has committed an offense under the Legal Practitioners Act.
The punishment for committing the aforementioned offense does not need to be first assessed by the bar council, as in the case of an offender who is a lawyer. Therefore, anyone who is guilty of wilfully using the description of a lawyer or pretends to be a legal practitioner is liable to a fine of an amount not exceeding #100[19].
Ultimately, both lawyers and non-lawyers are not given the discretion to decide how and when to be robed.
Balancing Creativity and Professional Integrity
There is no law that bars skit-making; skit-making is in fact a creative business on its own; it is the activities of skit-makers that the laws and rules tend to cover. There is no way the law will intend to admonish the portrayal of creativity, as in one way or another, it contributes to the economy of the nation and also helps in shaping the nation’s creative industry.
In the course of displaying creativity, it is the best practice for skit makers to try to curtain their activities in such a way that they are to ensure that they are not contravening any provision of the law while entertaining the public. Based on my personal experience, most skits posted online, aside from being entertaining, help develop mental health.
For lawyers who are at the same time skit-makers, it is suggested that they be custodians of the rule of law. It is very crucial to ensure a balance between creativity and professional integrity.
Conclusion
An important point to note from the above is that there is legal implication for wearing a lawyer’s robe (wig and gown) in skit making and the legal implication does not only apply to lawyers but likewise to non-lawyers. With respect to lawyers, the bar council has the final say as to what amounts to misconduct, and with respect to non-lawyers, there are restriction to the extent to which they can portray the legal profession.
From the foregoing, however, it is clear that this work does not intend to speak against skit-making, but rather the action of skit-makers, which puts the legal profession in a derogatory light. The work acknowledges the impact of skits on the Nigerian creative industry but calls for the need to balance creativity with the integrity of legal professionals.
[1] Apaokagi, M. [Taooma]. (2020, Nov 9). Court!!! [Video]. Youtube. here.
[3] Amokeoja, O. (2024). Joke apart: Nigeria’s skit-makers are laughing all the way to the bank. here
[4] Wikipedia.org
[5] Dankwambo v. Abubakar & ORS (2015) LPELR-25716(SC)
[6] Rule 45(1) Rules of Professional conduct, 2007.
[7] ibid
[8] Apaokagi, M. [Taooma]. (2020, Nov 9). Court!!! [Video]. Youtube. here
[9] Adebayo, D. [Mr Macaroni]. (2021, Nov 13). Langbalangba [Video]. Youtube. here
[10] Adebayo, D. [Mr Macaroni]. (2024, April 16). Battle of lawyers [Video]. Youtube. here
[11] Ejekwu, E., C. [Oga Sabinus]. (2023, Aug 14). Barrister Sabinus meet a beautiful lawyer [Video]. Youtube. here.
[12] (2016) LPELR-40025(CA)
[13] RPC, 2007.
[14] Rule 55, RPC, 2007
[15] Rule 1, RPC, 2007.
[16] Section 11(2), Legal Practitioners Act 1962 (as amended)
[17] Akintola v. Oyo State Sports Council (2006) LPELR-11601(CA)
[18] Section 22, LPA
[19] Section 22(1), LPA
About Author
Quadri Moyosore Adelanwa is a legal practitioner in Nigeria with 3 years post call. He has interest in Cyber-security Law, International Law, Criminal Law, among others.
