Abstract
Access to justice is assured for all in principle, and the concept closely associated with rule of law. The technicality of law itself compels the role of legal practitioners in ensuring access to justice. Consequently, human rights instruments, including the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, guarantee the right to legal assistance and representation. But do the provisions guarantee the freedoms in practical terms to all, including the poor and unrepresented citizens? This article argues that sections 35(2) and 36(6) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and similar provisions elsewhere have nothing to offer the poor in terms of legal representation. In essence, the rights ‘to remain silent or … until after consultation with a legal practitioner’ and to defend ‘by a legal practitioner of’ one’s choice have no useful application to the poor. A poor man arrested, detained or charged cannot exercise stated rights without legal representation. Few may be lucky to have free legal practitioner assigned to represent them, yet the assigned cannot be ‘his choice’. Others are left unrepresented in any form whatsoever. Clinical law students now offer limited legal assistance to poor unrepresented persons in Nigeria. There is no claim that these students can take the place of legal practitioners to satisfy the guarantees, but in the absence of any legal assistance, this is welcome development. But how does this legal assistance work? This is illustrated by a Nigerian experience of this exciting practice. The scope is restricted to Nigeria, and specifically ABSU Law Clinic.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.