Contempt In The Face Of The Court

There are diverse views as to the meaning of contempt in the face of the court. The narrow view is that the jurisdiction is restricted to conduct seen or heard by the judge. The wider view is that it extends to conduct without geographical boundaries.
Contempt in the legal acceptance term primarily signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard. In its origin, legal contempt was found to consist of an offence more or less directed against the sovereign as the head of law and justice, or against the palace as the place where justice was administered. It is an offence for which it is difficult to set out an exact definition. Generally speaking, contempt of court maybe said to be any conduct calculated to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect, or any act calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or process of the court. It has also been described as a disobedience to the court, or an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. It is worthy of note that contempt is not a personal matter, in that, it is not the judge or participant in court process who must be protected, but rather, the function he or she fulfils.
A contempt in the face of the court is one that occurs in the court or in the cognizance of the court, and has been described as including any word spoken or act done in the court or in the precincts of the court which obstructs or interfers with the due administration of justice or is calculated to do so.
The geographic boundary of what is considered to be in the face of the court is not settled. The clearest example of contempt in the face of the court includes: Assaults committed in court, insults to the court or its officers, interruption of court proceedings, refusal of witness to be sworn or to answer questions and the intoxication of an accused.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all superior courts of record, but for the purpose of punishing for contempt, the magistrate court has been held to be a court of record and as such has the power to punish summarily for contempt in the face of the court. See Nunku V. IGP 15 WACA 23. Some school of thought considers contempt as an offence that is not defined. In section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria it was provided that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefore prescribed in a written law. The law of contempt does not have such backing or legal force. But the goodnews is that this defect was also taken care of in S.6(6)(a) of the same constitution which provides that judicial powers vested in the courts shall extend notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law. This laid to rest the issue of contempt as an offence being undefined.
Also section 133 of the criminal code provides that: Any person who
(1)    Within the premises in which judicial proceeding is being heard or taken or within the precincts of the same shows disrespect in speech or manner to or with reference to such proceeding being heard or taken or
(2)    Having been called upon to give evidence in a judicial proceeding, fails to attend, refuses to be sworn or affirmed, refuses without lawful excuse to answer questions or to produce a document or prevaricates or remains in the room in which such proceeding is being heard or taken after the witnesses have been ordered to leave such room, or
Causes an obstruction or disturbance in the course of judicial proceeding or
While a judicial proceeding is pending, makes use of any speech or writing, misrepresenting such proceeding or capable of prejudicing any person in favour of or against any part to such proceeding or calculated to lower the authority of any person before whom such proceeding is being heard or taken:… is guilty of a simple offence and liable to imprisonment for three months.
The power to punish summarily for a contempt in the face of the court is undoubted and when a contempt is committed in facie curiae a superior court is entitled to punish it by fine and/or imprisonment as part of the jurisdiction of the court to prevent brevi manu any attempt to interfere with administration of justice. Oku V. The State (1970) NSCC 53. It is worthy to note that the power to commit a person for contempt of court is not retained for the personal aggrandizement of a judge or whoever mans the court. The powers are created, maintained and retained for the purpose of preserving the honour and the dignity of the court. The judge holds the power on behalf of the court and by tradition of his office….. Deduwa & Ors V. The State (1975) 2SC 34. The rational for contempt is the need to vindicate the dignity of the court and thereby protect due administration of justice rather than to protect the power and dignity of the judge as an individual.

Nkechi Bright Ewere