The Hunter
1.1K posts
The Hunter
@odzwale
Lover of the Deen| COYG | Graduate Urban planner | Duolingo Drop out.
UPDATE ON JUSTICE CRACK BAIL HEARING: THE CONTROVERSY OVER WHO SHOULD ASSUME THE ROLE OF LEAD COUNSEL IN THE BAIL PROCEEDINGS OF JUSTICE CRACK; reportedly culminated in the withdrawal of the bail application by Barr. Marshal Abubakar. However, the critical legal question many have failed to consider is whether Barr. Marshal Abubakar possessed the legal authority to withdraw the application. The straightforward answer is in the affirmative, provided he remained duly retained and had not been formally disengaged by his client at the material time. Under settled principles of legal representation, a counsel whose appearance has not been withdrawn and whose authority has not been expressly terminated by the client, retains the legal capacity to take procedural steps and conduct proceedings on behalf of that client. Consequently, until his retainer was revoked, Barr. Marshal Abubakar remained clothed with the authority to act for Justice Crack, including the withdrawal of processes filed in the course of representation. What ought to have occurred, if Justice Crack no longer desired him to continue acting in that capacity, was an immediate and unequivocal disengagement of counsel before the court. Upon such disengagement, other counsel on record could then validly assume conduct of the matter and proceed with the bail application. In simple words, Justice Crack should have immediately informed the court before the ruling that the services of Barr. Marshal Abubakar was no longer required, and requested the other lawyers to proceed with moving the bail application, and the court will proceed to hear and rule on the matter. It is also important to note that where a litigant is personally present in court and disagrees with the actions of counsel, the litigant possesses the right to instantly repudiate or terminate that authority before the court. In this instance, if Justice Crack intended to prevent the withdrawal of the bail application, he could have expressly dismissed or countermanded Barr. Marshal Abubakar’s authority on the spot. In the absence of any such clear disengagement or objection, Barr. Marshal Abubakar legally retained the ostensible and procedural authority to act on behalf of his client, and the withdrawal of the application cannot, in law, be said to have been done without authority. I always tell them that it is not about making noise, and constituting nuisance online and offline, they should use their brains more than they use their mouth. E. O. Ogar, Esq.
11th clean sheet of the season ✅
