ESQ Legal Practice Magazine JUNE 2014 EDITION | Page 49

24 of the LPA defines a legal
practitioner as a person
entitled "to practice as a
barrister or as a barrister and
solicitor, either generally or for
the purpose of any particular
office or proceedings". By virtue
of section 2(1)(a) and (b) of the
LPA, persons who may be
entitled to practice as a
barrister and solicitor include
persons whose names are on the
roll and persons who have
obtained a warrant of the Chief
Justice of Nigeria upon an
application made in that respect.
See Atake v. Afejuku (1994) 9
NWLR (Pt. 368) 379
Thus, by the combined effect
of the above provisions legal
practitioner‟as specified under
Article 4 of the Rules is
restricted to only persons who
are qualified to practice law in
Nigeria. A‟ fortiori, a person
who has not been enrolled to
practice law in Nigeria is not
permitted to represent any
party in domestic arbitration
proceedings unless the Chief
Justice of Nigeria, upon
application by the party
concerned, grants a warrant to
such person to represent the
party in that particular
proceedings. It is in deference
to this legal position that the
earlier referred arbitral
tribunal in the arbitration held
that foreign counsel cannot
represent the parties in a
domestic arbitration governed
by the Rules. This position,
which applied to litigation by
virtue of the Supreme Court
decision in Awolowo v Sarki
(1966) A.N.L.R. 171, appears to
have fuelled more worries that
arbitration may in fact be
shifting towards undue
technicality.

growth and may be viewed as
deserving of commendation.
Nevertheless, some of the
perceived adverse
repercussions of its strict
interpretation deserve
consideration too.
First, the restriction of
representation to only
Nigerian lawyers could
constitute a subliminal
disincentive to foreign
investments in Nigeria. In an
increasingly globalized world
there is emphasis on the
isolation of arbitration
proceedings as much as
possible from unnecessary
inhibitions of local laws, in
order to promote foreign
investments. To insist then
that legal representation in
domestic arbitrations must be
handled exclusively by local
counsel appears to be a
subversion of one of
arbitration‟s key features. It
could ultimately discourage
potential foreign direct
investors in Nigeria who may
be more inclined to retain
foreign counsel with whom
they are more conversant to
represent them in arbitral
proceedings, particularly
where the dispute is multijurisdictional and involves
exceptionally substantial
claims.
Secondly, Article 4 of the Rules
could trigger retaliatory
measures by other States, who
may likewise alter their rules
by restricting representation in
their domestic arbitration to
local counsel and thus deny
Nigerian practitioners the
opportunity to acquire crossjurisdictional experience that
is essential in today‟s global
market place.
For parties who are
The Stakes
represented by persons not
In the light of the restrictive
enrolled to practice law in
definition of legal practitioner‟, Nigeria, Article 4 of the Rules
It may be argued that in as
and its recent application by
much as Article 4 of the Rules an arbitral tribunal presents a
require participation of local
challenge. The role of foreign
counsel in domestic
counsel would be limited to
arbitration, the provision
advisory or consultancy
lends support to local content‟ services in domestic