Madukaegbu v. State [2018] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1626) 26 at 58, paras. B-C, per Eko, JSC:

“The very emotional, and highly vituperative counter-affidavit, the facts of which were supplied by the prosecuting counsel, E. I. Okafor, Esq., did not deny most of the salient facts in the supporting affidavit, including exhibit A. Mr. Okafor, quite unethically had taken undue liberty of the judicial immunity he had to deliver personal attacks on the character of the Appellant’s counsel. I think it is a conduct unbecoming of a counsel to goad a litigation officer under him to make scurrilous remarks on the opposing counsel. Calling the opposing counsel names, smacks of professional misconduct as well as immaturity on his part.”

Notes:

The above observation of Eko, JSC made in his dissenting Judgment in the case is worthy of being seriously noted. Counsel must always be reminded that the cases which they handle are basically the cases of their clients or litigants (or the State as in the instant case) and as such they must not take them personal. Whatever the case, there is no justification for attacking the person of an opposing counsel either verbally or as may be contained in affidavits, written addresses or other court processes. The opportunity counsel has to express himself on behalf of his client must not be abused by being seen as an opportunity to make insulting remarks. In worst cases, we have seen counsel disrespect both the opposing counsel as well as the court. The courts must take a bold step in condemning any such conduct whenever it appears or is noticed. Making disparaging remarks can by no means be part of advocacy. It is rather an antithesis of literacy. As his lordship noted, counsel must act professionally and maturely at all times and must uphold the dignity and nobility of the legal profession in all its ethical underpinnings.