I have heard this saying several times; "lawyers are liars" . This assertion is often spew by laymen who have little or no knowledge about the law and how it works. Such statement is fallacious in all ramification. If you understand how the law works , you would not make such statement. It's the duty of the court (lawyers) to interpret the law. And interpreting the law here simply means trying to read the mind of the law makers (legislative); to make sure the law solves exactly the problem it was created for , and not otherwise. The way a layman will interpret a piece of law is far different from the way a lawyer does that. A lawyer rationalize outed of emotion whereas a layman is often influence by emotion . This rationalization of a lawyer often appear unnecessarily strained, artificial and dishonest to a layman.

To understand more , check out section 359 of the Nigeria Criminal Code and try within yourself to interpret it with the case below.

"Any person who attempts to commit the offence of rape is guilty of a felony, and is liable for imprisonment for 14 years, with or without canning."

Read the short story below to see how the practice of law works...

1. Mr. John a carpenter , occupies a room in a public (face me I face you) compound.

2. Miss Julia a young sprinter, occupies a room next to john's room.

3. One quite afternoon, john after taking his bath, was walking toward his room when julia's curtain incidentally was blown up by breeze and john sharply took a gaze inside her room. And behold, he saw julia lying naked on her bed sleeping.

4. This was a tempting sight for john, whom had on several occasions woo julia to be his girlfriend but was turned down.

5. John opened the curtain wider to get a clear view. After a while of unsatisfied sensual viewing , he stepped into the room (julia's room),

6. John took off the towel he was tying around his waist and walked stark naked toward the bed where julia was lying.

7. John bend toward julia with his hands already on the bed, at the moment, julia suddenly opened her eyes and behold john naked right in front of her.

8. Julia out of shock, gaped out a loud scream, which attracted other neighbours.

9. John was caught, beaten and taken to the police station where he begged and blame the devil for his act.

10. John was thereafter charged to court by the police for offence of "Attempt to commit rape".

Looking at the about story, a layman (like the neighbours) would conclude that John was guilty and indefensible.

In the court, John's lawyer presented his defence brief . And argue vehemently that John was innocent. That he never intended or attempted to rape julia. That what he did was only to walk into her room, untied his towel and approached julia, to wake her up and probably beg her gently to have sex with him. That before you will say that a person attempted to commit an offence, the accused must have manifests his intention to commit the act by some overt act. In the case at hand, it would have been an offence of "attempt to commit rape" only if there had be a struggle , at that state it will be clear to all that John intention was to rape julia and not to gentle ask her to have intercourse with him. He based his argument on Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, which provides that:

"If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt".

The lawyer concluded his argument by stated that the prosecution had not in anyway prove their case beyond reasonable doubt that John intended or attempted to rape julia. And that the case was simply that of "mistake of intent" and should have never be brought to court in the first place.

At the end of the trial, John was declared innocent and the case was discharged.

From the above , you can see how the law works. To a layman (neighbours), the terrified scream of julia, the present of john in her room naked and the plead of john that it was the devil that push him to the act was enough evidence to convict him, but to a lawyer that's not enough. The practice of law necessitates a special technique of reasoning ( critical thinking) which is virtually necessary to the effective handling of legal issue.

Lawyers are compelled to reconcile incompatibles. Their everyday task is expert practical adjustment. Their life work is based on logic of probability. Realistic recognition of novel circumstances, tentativeness, adaptation, are of the very essence of the lawyer's invaluable technique. They are professional rationalizers.

agbero!! I fear dem die.

agbejoro!! I fear dem die.

Replace John with Tajudeen.

Meanwhile, this pic below makes my dik hard