As civil and family judges prepare to break with traditional court dress, the Bar resolutely holds firm to the wig. Ever wondered why Nigerian lawyers wear those black robes/gowns and white wigs when they appear in court? This article will explain the history behind the practice.
After the British colonized Nigeria, the country adopted the same legal system and by extension all the paraphernalia that came with it. One of which was the costume of the British barrister.
Like many of our ancient traditions, it was largely invented in the late 18th and 19th centuries. The wig had taken over from the bonnet or cap as barristerial headgear in 1680s. “Rather coxcombical,” muttered more traditional members of the Bar and judiciary.
The culture of lawyers wearing wigs in court actually has its roots in fashion! Charles II returned to England from France and brought with him the trend of the ‘periwig‘ from Louis XIV’s court. English society adopted the trend, as did barristers, it became the ‘in-thing’ for people, especially wealthy people, to wear wigs.
Sir William Blackstone wearing a wig
The practice of wearing wigs fell into 2 camps:
Read also: Atlanta Nigerian Passport Services
- Those who wore wigs in order to hide the fact that they were getting bald
- Those who wore wigs because they had shaved their hair in order to prevent infestations (lice infestations was a big worry back then).
So, it was fashionable to see everyday people (obviously only the wealthy people could afford it) wearing wigs. That is how the wearing of wigs got into the courts. However, over the years, the wearing of wigs began to get less and less fashionable and eventually people stopped wearing them, however by this time, lawyers and judges felt it sufficiently differentiated them from others and so they kept on the practice…and now more than 300 years down the line, that is why you would go to any of our many courts round the country and find a room full of Nigerian men and women all wearing wigs.
The Evolution of Court Dress in England
To understand the Nigerian context, it's essential to look at the evolution of court dress in England, from which many traditions were adopted.
There were certainly no professional rules about the type of wig to be worn. As late as 1790, The Times reported on the wig of the future Lord Erskine: “Mr Erskine [QC’s] new-invented wig, which from its extraordinary size and magnitude, afforded to much entertainment on Saturday in Westminster Hall, put the judges perfectly out of countenance.
Bishops obtained royal permission to abandon wigs in 1832. Attorneys and solicitors had abandoned wearing wigs in the 1820s. Although the process is a little mysterious, they became the barrister’s distinct uniform at around the same time. Those who write with authority on the subject describe this as a coincidence.
By 1844, the common law had recognised, or enforced, the position. Barristers were not to be heard in court without wigs and gown. The first recorded occasion seems to relate to a Mr Bodkin on a bail application “who happened to be in the court at that time but not in his wig and gown” in the case of R v Whitaker (1844) 8 JP Jo 390. As a result, he was “neither seen not heard” by Coleridge J. But the Bench was not uniformly in favour.
Read also: Experience Fad's Fine African Cuisine
The popularity of wigs amongst barristers was far from universal. During the very hot summer of 1868, Wilde J allowed barristers to remove their wigs. Sir Robert Collier QC at the end of a contested probate hearing “drew attention to the innovation”. Wilde J responded that “he had set the example of leaving off the wig in consequence of the unprecedented heat of the weather, as he thought there were limits to human endurance”. To which Sir Robert “expressed a wish that this precedent might be generally followed, and hoped that the obsolete institution of the wig was coming to an end”. Sir Robert, or just possibly the court reporter, added that this was “a sentiment in which many members of the Bar heartily concur”.
There was judicial manoeuvring in 1922, just before the first woman was called to the Bar, for the headwear of a woman barrister to be a biretta-a square cap with three or four ridges or peaks-rather than a wig. But Mr Justice Darling and Mr Justice Horridge were outvoted by the nine other judges present.
Although the Bar and Bench had, it appears, reconciled itself to the wig, Parliament had not entirely. In 1948, the House of Commons took time out from inventing the NHS to debate a motion to include in the Criminal Justice Bill a clause prohibiting the wearing of wigs and gowns in court.
The House of Commons (Standing Committee) debate was not perhaps of the highest quality. One MP inquired whether the mover of the clause would deprive “admirals of their three-cornered hats, or deprive generals of their epaulettes, or clergymen of their distinctive attire? He said nothing about nurses although I think we all agree that they look very pretty in their distinctive attire.” Another said: “If seeing a judge going through a side door, without a wig, a criminal might be likely to think that he looked like a wizened-up gargoyle, but on seeing him in his wig and gown he would realise the majesty of the law”.
And there it ended until 1992 and the Taylor consultations and, 16 years later, the debate continues. The Law Society has now successfully pressed for the right of solicitor advocates to wear wigs in court. Should solicitors really have been willing so readily to abandon an honourable and settled tradition of bare-headedness stretching back as far as the 1820s?
Read also: Philadelphia Food Truck
The Black Robe or Gown
Like the wearing of wigs, the culture of gowns was borrowed from the prevailing practice of the time, however, in the case of gowns, it had a little twist. People wore gowns back in the 17th century, it was part of the attire, however they wore very colourful gowns. The black gown was worn as a mourning gown after the death of Charles II in 1685. After the mourning period, the lawyers decided to keep wearing it, as it begun to symbolise the sombre nature of the profession and neutrality.
The black robe worn by lawyers also has a weird piece of triangular cloth attached to the left shoulder, often described as ‘violin-shaped’, which is cut in two lengthways. The origin of this is a bit more uncertain; there are two theories on it:
- That, this was once a money sack for payment of lawyer brief fees. According to some, it is divided in half to create two segments, one for gold coins, and the other for silver. The idea being that since lawyers were initially not openly paid for their work, clients placed ex-gratia payment into the pocket, literally behind their back, to preserve their dignity. Therefore, because they could not see how much they were being paid, the quality of their advocacy in court could not be compromised. (we like this theory, but it’s an unlikely one)
- The second theory is that the triangular cloth is a derivative of the mourning hood introduced following the death of Charles II, in keeping with traditional mourning dress of the time.
Nigerian Lawyers in court
Types of Wigs Worn by Nigerian Judges
In the Nigerian legal system, judges hold a position of authority and respect, and their attire reflects the solemnity of their role. One prominent aspect of their legal wear is the wig, which has deep-rooted traditions in the legal profession. Wearing wigs is a symbol of formality and tradition, and it adds a touch of elegance to the courtroom.
Here are the types of wigs worn by Nigerian judges:
Full-Bottomed Wig
The full-bottomed wig is a hallmark of tradition in the Nigerian judiciary and is often reserved for special occasions and formal ceremonies. This grand and voluminous wig is characterized by its long, curly locks that cascade down the judge’s back, creating an aura of authority and dignity. The wearing of full-bottomed wigs is most common in higher courts and during ceremonial events, symbolizing the gravity and significance of the proceedings.
Bench Wig
The bench wig, also known as a bob wig, is the most common type of wig worn by Nigerian judges during regular court sessions. It is characterized by its sleek and polished appearance, with shorter hair that frames the judge’s face. Bench wigs are typically made of human hair or synthetic materials and are designed to be comfortable for extended periods of wear.
Shoulder-Length Wig
The shoulder-length wig is a variation of the bench wig, slightly longer in length and reaching the judge’s shoulders. This type of wig strikes a balance between formality and convenience, making it suitable for everyday court proceedings. Like the bench wig, the shoulder-length wig complements the judge’s black gown and enhances their professional appearance in the courtroom.
The Significance of Wigs in the Legal Profession
The wigs worn by Nigerian judges hold immense significance in the legal profession, symbolizing the formality, dignity, and respect that underpin the judiciary’s traditions. The full-bottomed wig, with its historical roots and grandeur, remains a symbol of ceremonial occasions and the heritage of the British legal system.
Introducing Legal Essentials - Nigerian Legal System
As Nigerian lawyers, understanding the significance of these wigs and the traditions they represent is essential in maintaining the decorum and respect that the judiciary commands.
Arguments Against Wigs
Some argue that the wigs serve as a daily reminder of Nigeria’s failure to reform its inherited institutions. The wigs, they say, make a mockery of the judicial system in terms of ideology, local traditions, aesthetics and independence. Economically, the wig is mostly imported, which constitutes a capital flight from Nigeria. As a measure to liberate themselves, some African countries are taking steps to let off the former colonial trapping.
Here is why the tradition of wearing wigs in courtrooms has stuck around:
- Anonymity and equality: Wigs help create a sense of anonymity. When lawyers and judges wear wigs, it makes them look similar. This helps focus on the case and the law rather than the individual. It also gives everyone a sense of equality in the courtroom.
- Respect and tradition: Wearing a wig is a sign of respect for the court and the law. It's a way to honour the traditions of the legal system and show that the people in court take their roles seriously.
- Authority and seriousness: Wigs give lawyers and judges a serious appearance. This can help make the courtroom feel like a place of importance where the law is respected.
Arguments For Wigs
Some lawyers, though argued that the robe gives the profession the seriousness it desires. But the question is: must lawyers wear wigs and gowns to give seriousness to the profession?
Ms. Ifunanya Francese, also a lawyer, said the legal profession is noble, so it should be sustained. She further argued that the majority of lawyers are not protesting against the garment, and therefore, it should be continued.
“I don’t have anything against the wig and gown we wear as lawyers. Nigeria is made up of different tribes, traditions and cultures, including mode of dressing. As an Igbo man, I may be comfortable with the suit but is the Hausa man comfortable with it? So, the wig and gown cut across tribes. You say it’s inherited from the British. Yes, it is and so?
The Ongoing Debate
The British gave up their last colonies in Africa half a century ago. But they left their wigs behind. Not just any wigs. They are the long, white horsehair locks worn by high court judges (and King George III). They are so old-fashioned, and so uncomfortable, that even British barristers have stopped wearing them.
But in former British colonies - Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Malawi and others - they live on, worn by judges and lawyers. Now, a new generation of African jurists is asking: Why are the continent’s most prominent legal minds still wearing the trappings of the colonisers?
It’s not just a question of aesthetics. The wigs and robes are perhaps the most glaring symbol of colonial inheritance at a time when that history is being dredged up in all sorts of ways.
In nearly every former British colony, op-eds have been written and speeches made about why the wig ought to be removed. In Uganda, the New Vision newspaper conducted an investigation into the cost of the wigs, reporting that each one cost $6,500. In Ghana, a prominent lawyer, Augustine Niber, argued that removing wigs would reduce the “intimidation and fear that often characterise our courtrooms”.
One of the editors of the Nigerian Lawyer blog wrote that wigs weren’t made for the sweltering Lagos heat, where lawyers melted under their garb. “The culture that invented the wig and gown is different from our own and the weather is different,” Unini Chioma wrote.
Increasingly, though, opponents of the colonial outfit aren’t just arguing against inconvenience but against a tradition that African judiciaries appear to be embracing.
