BY UJAH ISRAEL UJAH ESQ B/Phil, LLB, BL, LLM, [Ph.D in View]
There is a silent humiliation worse than losing a case. It is the humiliation of appearing before the court unprepared, armed not with mastery but with noise; not with philosophy but with presumption. A lawyer who has not read his rules is like a physician who has not studied anatomy yet dares to hold the scalpel. The court is not a theatre for guesswork. It is a sanctuary of disciplined intellect that flows from reading and reading intentionally. History teaches us this lesson with unrelenting clarity.
In philosophy, there exist the famous proverbial “multiple readings” story which is associated with Avicenna (Ibn Sina). According to Avicenna’s own autobiographical account: He read Metaphysics by Aristotle about 40 times; and still did not fully understand it. It was only after he encountered a short commentary by Al-Farabi that the meaning became clear to him. You are tempted to ask how? And why would someone a book 40 times and still not understand it? My dear follow me let us drive out the lesson arising therefrom.
Who is Aristotle and what is his Metaphysics?
Aristotle was one of the most influential thinkers in human history; a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. But beyond biography, he was the architect of structured reasoning. Logic, ethics, metaphysics, politics, rhetoric, biology; he systematized them. If law today values order, categories, causes, and structured argument, it owes an intellectual debt to Aristotle.
And what then is his Metaphysics?
Metaphysics is not a simple book. It is a profound inquiry into “being qua being”, the study of existence itself. It asks: What does it mean for something to exist? What is substance?; What are causes?; What is essence? What is first principle? It is abstract. Dense. Architectonic. It is not the kind of work one skims. The word “metaphysics” itself originally meant “after the Physics”, because the work was placed after Aristotle’s Physics in arrangement. But conceptually, it became the study of first principles, the foundational structure beneath all disciplines.
Who is Avicenna, and why was he studying the Aristotlean Metaphysics in the first place?
Avicenna was no ordinary scholar. He was a Persian polymath: physician, philosopher, logician, jurist, theologian, and mathematician. By the age of eighteen, he had mastered the sciences of his time. His medical encyclopedia, The Canon of Medicine, would dominate European universities for centuries. His philosophical works would shape Islamic theology and later influence medieval Christian scholasticism. But Avicenna was not studying Aristotle out of curiosity. He was searching for certainty. In his intellectual autobiography, he recounts how he had mastered logic, mathematics, and natural sciences with relative ease. Yet when he approached Aristotle’s Metaphysics, something resisted him. The text dealt not with observable phenomena but with the structure of existence itself; substance, causality, necessity, contingency, essence. And these questions mattered deeply.
For Avicenna, metaphysics was not abstract speculation. It was the key to reconciling reason and revelation. It was the bridge between philosophy and theology. To understand existence was to understand God, causation, and the hierarchy of reality. It was the intellectual foundation upon which all other sciences rested. So he read. Again. And again. And again. Forty times, by his own account.
Why persist?
Because he understood something many professionals forget: Foundational texts determine foundational competence. He could not build a system of philosophy unless he first understood its roots. He could not speak authoritatively unless he had wrestled deeply. Only when he encountered a commentary by Al-Farabi did illumination occur. The fog lifted. The architecture became visible. What repetition prepared, guidance completed.
Having known who these personalities are – the ball is in your court to also read like them. While some of us were pursuing a philosophy degree at the Urbaniana Pontifical, we hadn’t any option but to read these works for over 60 times just to get the meaning of what Anisole was saying. Philosophically, the lesson remains powerful: Understanding sometimes demands repetition beyond pride.
Now observe the advocacy lesson hidden here: Avicenna did not blame Aristotle for being difficult. He did not dismiss the text as impractical. He did not claim genius as a substitute for discipline. He assumed the burden of understanding. And that is precisely the moral burden of the advocate. You do not approach procedural rules casually. You do not approach statutes with impatience. You do not approach jurisdiction with approximation. You study them because they are your metaphysics. Just as metaphysics determines the structure of philosophical thought, procedural law determines the structure of litigation. If you misunderstand first principles, every submission you make rests on unstable ground. Avicenna studied Aristotle because he knew that without mastering first causes, he could not claim intellectual authority.
The lawyer must do the same. Before you rise to address the court, you must first rise to meet the discipline of study. If Avicenna, a polymath of extraordinary genius, read this work forty times and still struggled, what does that teach the advocate? It teaches that depth is not conquered by pride. It teaches that mastery is born from repetition. It teaches that true understanding often requires guidance, commentary, humility. And here lies the bridge to advocacy: Procedure is to litigation what metaphysics is to philosophy; foundational. Invisible to the casual observer, but determinative of structure. If you do not understand the first principles of your procedural framework, your argument collapses no matter how eloquent. Aristotle studied being. Avicenna studied Aristotle. The serious lawyer studies his rules. Not once. Not casually. But until clarity displaces confusion. That is the moral burden of advocacy.
The Discipline of Great Minds
The works of Averroes (Ibn Rushd) were not read casually. They were studied obsessively. Commented upon. Reinterpreted. Disputed. Revered. European scholastics wrestled with his commentaries on Aristotle for centuries. His writings shaped medieval universities. His intellectual endurance was not accidental; it was forged in repetition. Likewise, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) did not approach philosophy as a hobby. He reportedly read Aristotle’s Metaphysics dozens of times before comprehension dawned upon him. His Canon of Medicine became a standard medical text for over 600 years. That is not the fruit of shallow reading. That is the harvest of relentless intellectual humility. They read until ignorance surrendered.
Now pause. If philosophers reread foundational texts repeatedly to grasp eternal truths, what excuse has you the lawyer who refuses to read procedural rules twice; even after amendments?
The Courtroom Is Not a Place for Intellectual Improvisation
Advocacy is not bravado. It is not eloquence divorced from structure. It is not the art of sounding confident while being conceptually empty. The courtroom listens at trial for one reason: coherence rooted in law. A judge does not listen because counsel is loud. A judge does not listen because counsel is senior. A judge listens because counsel is precise. Procedure is the architecture of justice. Without it, rights collapse. When a lawyer ignores the High Court Rules; even once; and then complains of “technical justice,” what he has truly displayed is intellectual laziness disguised as indignation. Ignorance of the rules is not revolutionary. It is irresponsible.
Ipsa Verba: The Power of the Exact Word
In law, ipsa verba; the very words, matter. The comma can convict. The tense can acquit. The sequence can determine jurisdiction. The difference between “shall” and “may” has altered destinies. Dey Play, just dey play, if you are prepared to approach and enter the advocacy gymnasium, bro I urge you to run and never look back because, one small lawyer would so drag your balls. The thing is your failure to know the rules is not a harmless oversight. In many instances, it can amount to professional negligence. A lawyer owes a duty of competence to the client. To appear without mastery is to betray that trust. And betrayal in advocacy is not dramatic; it is quiet. It happens when: You cite a rule that has been amended. You rely on a repealed provision. You file outside prescribed timelines. You misinterpret jurisdiction. The judge may not shout. But the ruling will speak.
Why the Court Truly Listens
The court listens because it must be persuaded through reason disciplined by law. Trials are not intellectual wrestling matches. They are structured dialogues governed by evidence and procedure. The judge listens to see: Whether you understand the cause of action. Whether your pleadings align with reliefs sought. Whether your submissions flow from statute and precedent. Whether your reasoning respects hierarchy of norms. A courtroom is a temple of ordered argument. You do not “direct the affairs of the court” by arrogance. You guide it by assisting it. That is advocacy.
Intellectual Humiliation Is Self-Inflicted
There is no greater embarrassment than being corrected on elementary procedure in open court; in the presence of your client. The humiliation is not from the judge. It is from your own unpreparedness. Averroes read Aristotle until clarity emerged. Avicenna read metaphysics until confusion dissolved. And you: counsel, have read the High Court Rules once, twice or thrice? If it takes 2,000 readings to master your craft, then begin. Mastery is not dramatic. It is repetitive.
The Moral Burden of the Lawyer
Law is not merely technical; it is ethical. Competence is moral. Preparation is moral. Mastery is moral. A lawyer who refuses to read deeply is not just careless; he is unjust. Because justice requires precision. And precision requires study. The legal profession does not reward shallow brilliance. It rewards disciplined thinking. Read the rules. Read the amendments.
Read the cases interpreting the amendments. Read again. Then rise to address the court.
Advocacy Is Intellectual Responsibility
True advocacy means: Knowing the procedural posture before speaking. Anticipating objections before they arise. Understanding why a court listens, and when it stops listening. Realizing that persuasion is built on architecture, not improvisation. The courtroom is not a stage for ego. It is a laboratory of reason. And reason demands preparation. If philosophers could spend lifetimes wrestling with metaphysics, if medical scholars could refine a text for centuries, if jurists could refine doctrines across generations, then the least a lawyer can do is master his rules; repeatedly. Because when you stand before the bench, you do not merely represent a client. You represent the discipline of law itself. And the law does not forgive intellectual laziness.
You are catholic priest, have you read the mystery of the holy trinity adequately? As lawyer have read and truly understood where the divide lies when two judgement are conflicting and which one should prevail? As a medical doctor have comprehend the Vitalism ideology even after med school? How Modernism in Architecture? You are encouraged to read, read again and trust me you would be glad you did.
Rise Only after You Have Bowed to Study
Avicenna bowed before Aristotle before he ever presumed to build a system of his own. He read until pride was exhausted. He read until confusion surrendered. He read until illumination came. That is the posture of every serious mind. The advocate must learn that same posture.
Before you rise in court, you must first bow to the discipline of study.
Before you address the bench, you must first confront your ignorance.
Before you claim authority, you must earn it in private.
The courtroom does not reward noise.
It rewards structure.
It rewards clarity.
It rewards preparation.
A priest who has not wrestled with the mystery of the Trinity speaks ritual without depth.
A doctor who has not examined the philosophical foundations of medicine practices technique without reflection.
An architect who ignores the ideological battles of Modernism builds without meaning.
And a lawyer who has not mastered procedure litigates without foundation.
The divide between conflicting judgments.
The hierarchy of courts.
The meaning of “shall” and “may.”
The consequence of a missed timeline.
These are not minor details. They are the metaphysics of advocacy.
To misunderstand them is not merely an intellectual failure; it is a moral one. Because the client’s liberty, property, reputation, and sometimes life, rest upon your competence.
Avicenna read forty times. Averroes wrote volumes of commentary. Generations refined doctrine through disciplined repetition. And you — counsel — would read once and rise?
No. Read until clarity displaces confusion. Read until amendments become instinct. Read until jurisdiction feels structural, not optional. Read until the rules no longer intimidate you, because you have internalized them. Then rise. For when you stand before the court, you do not merely speak. You represent the intellectual honor of the legal profession. And the law, like philosophy, yields its authority only to those who have first submitted to its discipline.
Ujah Israel Ujah, Esq. is a legal practitioner whose work is anchored in disciplined advocacy and institutional accountability. With extensive experience in civil litigation, election law, and public policy practice in Nigeria, his scholarship and courtroom engagement emphasize the moral burden of competence within the legal profession. He holds a B/Phil, LL.B, B.L, LL.M, and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Law. His intellectual foundation and formation in philosophy continues to shape his legal reasoning, particularly at the intersection of law, governance, procedural discipline, and institutional integrity. His writings frequently explore the structural foundations of justice, the ethics of advocacy, and the responsibility of professionals to master the first principles of their craft. He is the Principal of Heni Attorneys & Consultancy, based at 21/26 Ogbomosho Street, Garki Area 8, Abuja, where he provides advisory and compliance services to political actors, aspirants, organizations, and faith-based stakeholders, with particular focus on regulatory processes, dispute resolution, and governance accountability. He can be reached at 07034651322.
In this article