Chimezie Onuzulike, in his article, Affidavit Evidence and The Advocate-Witness Rule: A Critique of the Recent Decisions of the Supreme Court, examines the ethical issues arising when counsel combines the role of advocate and witness for a client. Onuzulike posits that in the course of prosecuting their client’s case, lawyers may know of certain facts because of their involvement in the events giving rise to those facts. The facts may relate to investigations undertaken as part of the representation or may even relate to matters of practice and procedure, which means that the lawyers are more competent to speak to those facts. Therefore, in reality, a lawyer may find himself in a situation where he may have to act as a witness for his client. The situation is complicated where the lawyer is required to give oral evidence and be cross-examined, but much less so when all he has to do is depose to facts within his personal knowledge in an affidavit on behalf of the client. The Nigerian courts have not only held that a lawyer cannot depose to affidavits on behalf of his client as that would amount to a breach of ethical rules, but also that such an affidavit deposed to by a lawyer is incompetent and would be discountenanced. Onuzulike argues that the position of the Nigerian courts on lawyers deposing to affidavits on behalf of their clients is erroneous, problematic and misses the point.

Dr Mathew Anushiem of the Faculty of Law, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria, in his article, Judicial Attitude to Service of Originating Court Process on a Company by Substituted Means: Imperative for Revisitation, explains that the service of court processes, particularly originating processes, confers jurisdiction on courts to adjudicate on a case and also bring to the defendant’s notice of a claim against him to enable the defendant to either defend or admit the claim. Originating processes are usually served personally or through substituted means. However, in cases where a defendant is a company, the courts frown at the service of originating court process on it by substituted means. The ratio behind the courts’ decisions is that a company is usually stationary at the registered corporate address. A process server can always go to the company and serve the originating processes in accordance with the Rules to wit: service on the company’s principal officers. Given current happenings, the nature of some businesses and technological advancement, Dr Anushiem posits that there is the need to revisit the Rules and judicial attitude to bring them in tandem with modern trends.