.png)
.png)
1 month ago
13
Editor's note: In this piece, Ezinwanne Onwuka questions wherefore pistillate lawyers successful Nigeria are inactive barred from wearing trousers successful court, and what that says astir fairness, tradition, and equality successful the ineligible profession.
In Nigeria’s ineligible profession, 1 contented continues to puzzle me: the regularisation forbidding pistillate lawyers from wearing trousers successful court. This is simply a taxable that astir radical shy distant from talking about, possibly due to the fact that it is simply a longstanding regularisation that has, implicit time, assumed the presumption of a tradition. And arsenic we know, contented is usually followed dogmatically. Curiously, during my probe connected this topic, I discovered, to my consternation, that the lone nonfiction connected the substance was an editorial by The NigeriaLawyer, published 5 years ago! That was each the confirmation I needed to cognize that I was not incorrect for wanting to adhd my dependable to the conversation.
Source: Getty Images
To commencement with, the no-trousers regularisation is strictly enforced successful courtrooms and astatine the Nigerian Law School (NLS). Furthermore, immoderate instrumentality faculties successful tertiary institutions crossed the state barroom pistillate students from wearing achromatic trousers with their achromatic shirts, insisting alternatively connected achromatic skirts oregon dresses arsenic the authoritative formal code. The justification usually fixed for this is that the students are being groomed for the strict formal codification regulations that await them successful instrumentality school.
In Nigerian courts, a pistillate lawyer risks being excluded from proceedings, reprimanded by judges, oregon denied introduction to the tribunal premises for wearing trousers nether her robe. While the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC) bash not specify penalties for specified formal codification violations, Rule 2 of the NLS Code of Conduct for Students states that students who flout the formal codification shall beryllium escorted retired of oregon refused introduction into lecture halls. It besides provides that connected breaking the instrumentality a 2nd time, the pupil shall beryllium rusticated.
The statement is that it is each astir nonrecreational etiquette. After all, instrumentality is simply a superior profession, and truthful a lawyer's quality matters—in and extracurricular the courtroom. As a substance of fact, Rule 6(b) of the RPC mandates lawyers to ‘...always beryllium attired successful a due and dignified manner.’ This mightiness beryllium considered arsenic the ground for the enforcement of the no-trouser regularisation for pistillate lawyers. But is that truly the case? This interrogation is indispensable and important arsenic the said rule—and immoderate different successful the RPC—does not explicitly legislate against trousers for women.
It is important to enactment that Rule 6(b) of the RPC does not specify what ‘proper’ and ‘dignified’ mean, and it surely does not frankly o.k. of skirts and dresses portion restricting trousers. So, however did we extremity up with a regularisation that treats skirts and dresses arsenic the lone acceptable enactment for women successful the ineligible profession? Omawunmi's one-time lyrics: ‘If you inquire me, na who I spell ask?’ readily travel to mind. Nevertheless, the accustomed effect is that it is to support courtroom decorum, which is rather amusing, I indispensable say, due to the fact that it assumes that skirts and dresses are, by default, much ‘professional’, much ‘proper’, and much ‘dignified’ compared to trousers. This presumption is questionable.
In the lack of immoderate circumstantial regulations for pistillate lawyers regarding their attire during tribunal appearances, but the regularisation requiring skirts of a definite magnitude (typically beneath the knee), it suffices to authorities that the no-trousers regularisation is much a substance of customary signifier and organization formal codes alternatively than statutory law. And I situation accidental that it is rooted successful outdated sex stereotypes that specify what is considered ‘appropriate’ for women and what is not. Worst still, successful a assemblage that prides itself connected justness and equity!
Source: Getty Images
By enforcing this accepted rule, the Nigerian Council of Legal Education and the Nigerian Body of Benchers beforehand an representation of the perfect pistillate lawyer arsenic a ‘gentleman successful skirt.’ A operation that has been described arsenic a ‘paradoxical identity’ for women successful instrumentality successful an opinion published successful the Nigerian Tribune connected 17 March 2025. The writer of the sentiment suggests that pistillate lawyers are inactive considered outsiders successful a traditionally antheral profession. This is wherever sex stereotypes travel in.
Essentially, the regularisation prohibiting pistillate lawyers from wearing trousers nether the accepted agelong achromatic robe assumes that nonrecreational decorum, arsenic it stands, is gendered. This calls for concern. If you deliberation astir it carefully, it is ironic that a assemblage that champions justice, equity, and inclusiveness would enforce a discriminatory formal codification connected fractional of its members.
Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees state from favoritism based connected sex, religion, oregon taste group, among others. Clearly, a regularisation that prevents women successful instrumentality from wearing trousers, which has since assumed a modular mode of dressing successful nonrecreational settings and connected ceremonial occasions, contravenes this law provision. Going by conception 1(1) and (3) of the 1999 constitution, the regularisation is null and void.
More so, successful different climes, nonrecreational formal codes for pistillate lawyers person been relaxed. For instance, successful India, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, disciplinary rules person been amended to let pistillate lawyers to deterioration trousers erstwhile appearing successful court. Sadly, it appears that portion the satellite is moving forward, successful Nigeria, we proceed to travel the form, but not the reform. Someone mightiness interject, ‘Ezinwanne, it's truly not that serious.’ But, ohio yes! It is that serious. If the ineligible assemblage fails to uphold equity wrong its ranks, is it not hypocritical of ineligible practitioners to assertion to combat for equity successful society? So, you see, it is that serious.
To gully the curtain connected this substance for now, it is my submission that the prohibition of trousers for pistillate lawyers and lawyers-to-be successful courtrooms, astatine the NLS, and successful schools, respectively, is unjustifiable.
Instead of banning trousers outright, determination should beryllium regulations connected the type, colour, length, etc., conscionable similar skirts and men’s trousers are. Taking Rule 6(b) of the RPC arsenic our guide, we larn lone that a lawyer’s covering should beryllium ‘dignified’ and ‘proper.’ And today, women’s trousers, similar men’s, scope from casual to sloppy to formal. While immoderate whitethorn autumn abbreviated of the ‘dignified’ and ‘proper’ standard, galore suit the modular perfectly, whether for tribunal appearances oregon for instrumentality school.
Ezinwanne whitethorn beryllium reached astatine [email protected]Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed present are those of the writer and bash not needfully bespeak the authoritative argumentation oregon presumption of Legit.ng.
PAY ATTENTION: Сheck retired quality that is picked exactly for YOU ➡️ find the “Recommended for you” artifact connected the location leafage and enjoy!
Source: Legit.ng
