THE ANATOMY OF A MANDATE: PROFESSIONAL SOLIDARITY AND THE "GROUNDWORK GAP" | Amb. Barr. Clementina E. Ukiri (De Dominus Litis)

​The recent courtroom drama involving the social media influencer Chidiebere Mark (Justice Crack) and his erstwhile counsel, Marshall Abubakar, at the Federal High Court Abuja, is more than a viral headline. For the discerning legal practitioner, it is a sobering case study on the fragile intersection of professional etiquette, the law of agency, and litigation strategy.

​When seniority is invoked as a sword rather than a shield, and when a client’s family undermines counsel in open court, the resulting legal skeleton reveals a systemic failure that we must dissect with clinical precision.

​1. THE DOCTRINE OF MANDATE: A CONTRACT OF AGENCY

​At its core, the relationship between a lawyer and a client is a contract of agency. The lawyer’s locus standi to move the court is entirely dependent on the existence of clear, uninhibited instructions.

​In the Justice Crack case, when the defendant’s family stood in open court to challenge the authority of Marshall Abubakar—the counsel who had handled the arraignment and filed the necessary processes—they effectively severed the mandate. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) and established judicial precedent, a lawyer cannot force representation on an unwilling litigant. As seen in Okonkwo v. Udoh (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 520) 383, the client’s right to choose counsel of their choice is fundamental, but it must be exercised with procedural dignity. The court has a duty to ensure the proceedings are regular. If the judge had ignored the conflict and allowed the unauthorised Marshall to move the motion, or acted upon it, the judge would have been in error, just as the trial judge in Okonkwo was in error for failing to consider vital evidence.

​2. THE CONFLICT OF MANDATE: SPOUSE VS. PRINCIPAL

​A recurring question in the wake of these proceedings is whether the instructions of a spouse—in this case, the wife who reportedly briefed Marshall Abubakar—should suffice to keep a counsel’s processes alive even when the defendant himself expresses a contrary view in court.

​Under the law of agency, a spouse may act as an agent of necessity to secure legal representation for a detained partner. However, this is a voidable mandate. The moment the principal (the defendant) is present and capable of expressing his own will, his instructions override all third-party briefings. In the eyes of the law, the defendant is the Dominus Litis of his own liberty. If he stands up and says, "I do not recognise this counsel as my lead," the prior instructions given by the wife are effectively revoked. As held in Adewunmi v. Plastex Nig. Ltd (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 32) 767, the authority of a legal practitioner to represent a party is a matter of fact that can be challenged; once challenged by the party themselves, the counsel’s locus standi to move or retain his legal industry to move the court on their behalf vanishes.

​3. WHY THE PROCESSES MUST BE WITHDRAWN

​Many have criticised the decision to withdraw processes as an act of ego. On the contrary, it was a necessary legal consequence of a severed mandate. A lawyer who continues to move an application after being publicly disavowed by the client risks committing a breach of the RPC, specifically Rule 24, which mandates that a lawyer shall not act without instructions.

​If Marshall had proceeded despite the defendant’s public denial, any order obtained could be set aside on the grounds of lack of authority. A process moved without the principal's consent is a legal nullity. By withdrawing the processes, Marshall was not just reacting to an insult; he was preventing the court from wasting its time on an unauthorised application that would have been dead on arrival. Loyalty is a two-way street; you cannot undermine your counsel in the morning and expect them to fight for your liberty in the afternoon.

​4. THE "GROUNDWORK GAP" AND PROFESSIONAL ETIQUETTE

​The most damning aspect of the May 14th proceedings was the lack of professional preparation by the incoming lead counsel. In litigation, a Notice of Change of Counsel is not a suggestion; it is a procedural requirement.

​The Breach: No notice was served on the counsel of record before the hearing.

​The Hijack: Why arrive in court to claim lead counsel status without having filed a single fresh process?

​If the incoming team were truly prepared, they would have filed their own bail applications. A seamless transition would have allowed Marshall to withdraw his processes while the new team substituted theirs. Instead, the prioritisation of announcing appearance over doing the groundwork left the defendant with nothing. As a result, the defendant was remanded back to DSS custody, proving that a client pays the highest price when alignment is sacrificed for ego.

​5. PROTECTING PROFESSIONAL SOLIDARITY

​We must move past the sentiment of being politically correct at the expense of our colleagues' dignity. The Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 26) enjoin us to treat our colleagues with utmost courtesy and fairness.

​Ambush litigation against a fellow lawyer, especially one who has already done the heavy lifting of filing and research, is a stain on the Bar. When we allow litigants to play musical chairs with counsel in open court without consequence, we undermine the sanctity of the legal profession.

​CONCLUSION

​The Justice Crack saga serves as a warning: alignment is the highest form of intimacy in law. You cannot ride two horses at once; if the defendant denies the rider, the horse (the legal process) must stop.

​For the litigant, the lesson is clear: do not sabotage your defence in a bid for seniority. For the practitioner, the charge is even higher: we must protect professional solidarity. If we do not respect our own mandate, we cannot expect the court, or the public, to respect the Bar. Let us return to the era of covenant representation, where preparation precedes appearance and respect for a colleague's industry is non-negotiable.