Reflections on Judicial Communication and Courtroom Standards in Nigeria
By Sylvester Udemezue
1. Background
On 10 February 2026, an “Internal Memo” titled “Appropriate Dress Code for Counsel Appearing in Court” was issued from the office of “The Presiding Justice” and addressed to all learned counsel appearing before an unnamed court of law. The memorandum sets out eight directives regulating courtroom appearance and conduct. Among other requirements, it stipulates that counsel must be properly robed in black suits (excluding grey, navy blue, or other coloured suits); that dresses or skirt suits must be long-sleeved and not “mini”; that hairstyles must be moderate and properly arranged to the back, with no coloured hair; that large or drop earrings and elaborate jewellery are prohibited; that handbags must be black and kept beneath the table; that jackets must be buttoned; that shoes must be black; and that all mobile phones belonging to counsel and their clients must remain on silent mode during court sessions. The evident objective of the memorandum is to reinforce decorum, discipline, and professional dignity within the courtroom: values that lie at the very heart of legal practice. In the considered opinion of this writer, the preservation of proper dressing and orderly conduct among counsel is fully consistent with the traditions and ethical expectations of the Bar. It is against this background, acknowledging the legitimacy of the objective while reflecting on the form, structure, tone, and presentation of the directive, that this commentary is respectfully offered.
2. The Merit of the Memorandum
With the utmost respect and humility, it is important to begin by stating unequivocally that the present writer supports every genuine effort aimed at preserving the dignity, decorum, and ethical standards of the legal profession in Nigeria. The courtroom is a sacred arena of justice. It is only proper that counsel appearing before it be properly robed and decently dressed. On that account, the intention behind the memorandum is commendable. Any initiative designed to curb indecent, improper, or unprofessional dressing among legal practitioners deserves thoughtful consideration and, where appropriate, collective support.
However, while the objective of the memorandum is laudable, its presentation, structure, and drafting raise concerns that merit respectful reflection. The observations that follow are therefore offered not in criticism of authority, but in defence of institutional excellence.
2.1 Absence of Proper Institutional Identification
Although styled as an “INTERNAL MEMO” and stated to be from “THE PRESIDING JUSTICE” to “ALL LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING BEFORE THIS COURT,” the document does not identify the name of the court; the judicial division; the geographical location; and the specific Presiding Justice. For a document emanating from a superior court of record, this omission is significant. Institutional communications must carry clear and unmistakable identification. Without it, the memo lacks formal authenticity and administrative precision.
If counsel are required to maintain identifiable professional standards before a particular court, that court ought equally to identify itself clearly in its formal communications. Excellence, it is respectfully submitted, must be reciprocal.
2.2 Structural and Formatting Deficiencies
Several structural issues diminish the formal quality expected of judicial communication. In the instant case, although the heading “INTERNAL MEMO” appears prominently, the document lacks official letterhead, seal, or institutional insignia. The “FROM,” “TO,” “DATE,” and “SUBJECT” layout resembles an informal office communication rather than a formal judicial directive. A directive regulating courtroom conduct would ordinarily be framed as (a) a Practice Direction; (b) a Circular; or (c) a formal Administrative Notice. Such designation is not merely cosmetic; it defines the normative weight of the document. A specimen circular reflecting what, in the respectful opinion of this writer, would constitute a more appropriate format is attached at the end of this commentary.
2.3 Grammatical and Linguistic Concerns
Documents emanating from courts of law should exemplify clarity, grammatical precision, and linguistic elegance. The judiciary remains one of the final custodians of refined legal expression. Several issues arise with the Memo under revieew:
(a) Inconsistent Use of “Colour”: Item 7 states: “COUNSEL’S SHOES MUST BE COLOUR BLACK.” The correct construction would be: “Counsel’s shoes must be black,” or “Counsel’s shoes must be black in colour.” As written, it is grammatically defective.
(b) Use of Block Capitalisation: The entire body of the memorandum is written in block capital letters. While this may be stylistic, it reduces readability, diminishes visual elegance, and conveys severity rather than measured authority. Judicial communication traditionally reflects calm restraint rather than typographical emphasis.
(c) Ambiguous or Inelegant Expressions; these may appear minor, but language is the judiciary’s primary instrument. Hence, precision matters.:
- “Counsel should be properly robbed in black suits…”: The word “robbed” appears instead of “robed.” In legal context, this is a significant lexical error.
- “Counsel’s dresses/skirt suits must be long sleeved and not mini”: The phrase “not mini” is colloquial and imprecise. A more formal phrasing might be: “Skirts must be of modest length,” or “Skirt length must fall below the knee.”
- “No big or drop earrings or elaborate jewelries”: “Jewelleries” is grammatically incorrect; the proper term is “jewellery.” Additionally, “big” is subjective and lacks objective standard.
- “Counsel’s hand bags must be black…”: “Handbags” should be written as one word.
2.4 Absence of Legal or Ethical Foundation
The memorandum does not refer to the Rules of Professional Conduct, does not cite judicial authority, does not indicate whether it reinforces existing standards or introduces new directives, and does not provide contextual background explaining the necessity of the directive. Even a brief introductory paragraph explaining that recent observations necessitated clarification would have strengthened the document considerably. Without context, the memo appears abrupt and unexplained.
2.5 Selective Focus and Scope Concerns
The memorandum appears to focus predominantly on female attire (skirts, earrings, hairstyles, handbags ) with comparatively limited guidance directed at male counsel.
While decorum applies equally to all, regulatory tone must avoid the appearance of disproportionate targeting. Neutrality in expression preserves both fairness and dignity.
2.6 Tone and Institutional Elegance
Courts are temples of measured authority. Their communications should reflect calm strength, intellectual clarity, and institutional poise. When a document from a superior court contains typographical errors, grammatical lapses, and structural omissions, it inadvertently diminishes the very standard of excellence it seeks to enforce. If the court demands precision in advocacy from counsel, its own administrative communications should reflect the same precision.
2.7 Signature and Authentication Concerns
The memorandum concludes with “EMOJEGHWARE ESTHER, FOR: PRESIDING JUSTICE”. However, no clarification is provided as to the capacity in which the signatory acts. Is the signatory the Registrar; a Judicial Assistant; or an administrative officer acting under delegation? Formal administrative documents should clearly indicate the designation of the signatory. This is because signature is not ceremonial; it embodies institutional authority.
3. On Proper Signatory in Judicial Communication
In institutional governance, authority must not only exist; it must be visible, traceable, and accountable. A judicial signature is more than ink on paper; it is formal authentication of constitutional authority. When a court issues directives affecting professional conduct or procedural rights, clarity regarding authorship safeguards transparency and reinforces public confidence. Accordingly, it is respectfully suggested as follows:
(a) Judicial Directives: Where a document regulates courtroom conduct, affects rights of audience, imposes compliance obligations, or clarifies procedural standards, it should be signed personally by the Presiding Judge or Head of Court.
(b) Practice Directions: A Practice Direction should be clearly designated as such, personally signed by the Head of Court, and include its effective date.
(c) Administrative Notices: Where a document concerns scheduling, filing hours, registry procedures, or logistics, it may properly be signed by the Chief Registrar or Registrar.
(d) Delegated Signatures: Where a registrar signs on behalf of a judge, the signature block must clearly indicate the name and designation of the administrative officer, and must indicate that the directive originates from the Judge.
(e) The Following Should Be Avoided: anonymous signatures; undesignated names; ambiguous use of “For:” without clarification; absence of date; and failure to identify the issuing court. Clarity in signature is not cosmetic; it is foundational.
4. Conclusion
To be clear, the present author firmly believes that the substance of the directive conveyed in the Memo under review is not objectionable. This is because professional dressing is non-negotiable in the legal profession. However, institutional authority is most persuasive when clothed in structural clarity, grammatical excellence, formal precision, contextual explanation, and dignified presentation. The judiciary remains the gold standard of disciplined expression in our legal system. Every communication from it should reflect distinction, professionalism and elegance. These observations are offered with utmost respect, unalloyed loyalty to institutional integrity, and a sincere desire for the continuous elevation of our courts and our profession. Excellence should not only be demanded; it must also be demonstrated.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
08109024556, udemsyl@gmail.com.
(11 February 2026)
—————————————————–
SPECIMEN CIRCULAR (THIS FORMAT IS INDICATIVE, NOT PRESCRIPTIVE)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
….……….STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE…………….JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT …………….
CIRCULAR NO: ………….. / 2026
Date: 10 February 2026
From: The Honourable Presiding Judge
To: All Learned Counsel Appearing Before This Honourable Court
Subject: Courtroom Dress Code and Decorum for Counsel Appearing Before the Court
- Introduction/Background
- The Court has observed, in recent times, certain variations in courtroom attire and general decorum that necessitate clarification and reinforcement of established professional standards.
- The legal profession is one founded upon discipline, dignity, and decorum. The courtroom remains a solemn forum for the administration of justice, and all who appear before it are expected to uphold the highest traditions of the Bar.
- This Circular is therefore issued to restate and reinforce the standards of appearance and conduct expected of counsel appearing before this Honourable Court.
2. Legal and Ethical Basis
Learned Counsel are reminded that professional appearance and conduct in court are regulated by the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, the established traditions of the Bar and the Bench, and the inherent powers of the Court to regulate proceedings before it in order to preserve order, decorum, dignity, professionalism, and respect. This Circular introduces no new obligations; it merely clarifies and reinforces existing expectations.
- Dress Code Requirements
Accordingly, with immediate effect, all counsel appearing before this Court shall observe the following:
- Robing and Suits: Counsel must be properly robed and dressed in black suits. Grey, navy blue, or other coloured suits are not acceptable for court appearances.
- Dresses and Skirt Suits: Where counsel appear in dresses or skirt suits:
- Sleeves must be of appropriate length;
- Skirt length must be modest and professional;
- Attire must conform to the dignity of the Court.
- Hairstyles: Hairstyles must be moderate, neat, and professional. Unconventional or brightly coloured hair is inappropriate for courtroom appearances.
- Jewellery and Accessories: Jewellery must be modest and unobtrusive. Large, dangling, or elaborate accessories are discouraged.
- Handbags and Personal Items: Handbags, where brought into court, should be black and discreetly placed beneath counsel’s table.
- Jackets: Suit jackets must be properly worn and appropriately buttoned while addressing the Court.
- Footwear: Footwear must be black and formal.
4. Use of Mobile Phones
All mobile phones belonging to counsel and their clients must be placed on silent mode during court proceedings. Disruptions caused by ringing devices undermine the decorum of the Court and will not be tolerated.
- Compliance
Counsel are expected to comply strictly with these standards. Where necessary, the Court may decline audience to any counsel whose appearance falls below acceptable professional standards. The Court trusts that members of the Bar will cooperate fully in maintaining the dignity and integrity of judicial proceedings.
6. Conclusion
The Bench and the Bar share a collective responsibility to preserve the honour of the legal profession. Decorum in appearance is not merely a matter of aesthetics but a reflection of respect for the Court, the profession, and the administration of justice.
Your cooperation will be appreciated.
Signed:
__________________
Hon. Justice……………….
Presiding Judge
