The Judiciary as the Last Hope of the Common Man: Media and Legal Perspectives
On November 29, 2024, the Gavel International Annual Lecture was held in Lagos, with the theme ” The Judiciary as the Last Hope of the Common Man: Media and Legal Perspectives”. This lecture explored the vital roles of the judiciary in upholding democracy, safeguarding rights, and fostering justice in society.
Below is the first part of his insightful presentation, focusing on the judiciary and its pivotal place in maintaining the rule of law
The Judiciary which is the central focus of this lecture is an institution after my heart and because of this, I have committed myself to defend and advance its course at all times. Towards this course, I have accepted several invitations to deliver several lectures. These lectures include but are not limited to
“Delay in the Administration of Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution”
presented to the committee on judiciary and legal reforms of the National Political Reform Conference, 2005,
The Judiciary is the third arm of Government. It is a critical institution for upholding the Rule of Law. Every civilized society needs a functional, efficient and effective judicial system. The Judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of the fundamental human rights of the people. It is the interpreter of the laws. It is also the maintainer of public order and public security. The Judiciary is the guarantee against arbitrariness and perhaps the insurance for a just and happy society. It occupies a pivotal position in the administration of justice. It must be noted that the law and its practice remain one the foundations of a civilized society. Law is the significant life wire for maintaining societal equilibrium and social justice. Law and its practice are the indispensable drivers and leavers of developments.
Hon. Justice Mustapha, the former Chief Justice of Nigeria once commented on the indispensable and obligatory role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy by saying that:
The Judiciary is often regarded as the last hope of the common man because it provides a safe guard against abuse and misuse of power. However, the question I hasten to ask is,
I like to believe that the common here is used as a figurative expression only. The Judiciary ensures justice for all citizens in addition to its critical role in upholding the rule of law by keeping the other two arms of government in check that is, The Executive and Legislature. I submit that the judiciary I the last hope of not only the common man, but also it is the last hope of the common, the uncommon, big and small, old and young, educated and illiterate, rich or poor as well as Government or governed. I will be using the words common man and or the citizens interchangeably.
In democratic society, it is usual to see the judiciary as the last hope. Now I say the last hope of the citizens particularly in serving as a safe guard for the resolution of dispute. It also holds the powerful accountable. Regardless of what anybody may say, permit me to say that the judiciary in Nigeria has done substantial justice since the independence even in the face of tyranny and military dictatorship. In
the Police and the State Security Service (SSS) had stormed the residence of chief Gani Fawehinmi fully armed with guns, arrested him and took him ti the SSS office at Shangisha, Lagos from where he was fully transferred to Bauchi prison.
In an action to declare the arrest and detention illegal, the state relied on the State Security (Detention of Persons) Degree No.2 of 1984. The Degree via its Section 4expressly ousted the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the Appellant’s case. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rose solidly to the occasion and declared the detention illegal and ordered the release of the of the detainee in spite of the ouster clause.
Also in “
. The Court of Appeal held per jummal Hannatu Sankey JCA that:
described
Let me rest here with the most recent of these exercise of powers by the judiciary in defense of the citizens to check the excesses of the other arms of Government and other acts of abuse and misuse of power by citing the case of Attorney General of Kaduna State & 9 Ors vs. Attorney General of the Federation & 2 Ors”. Some States have gone to court over the Naira re-design by the Central Bank of Nigeria in 2022. Their relief was that both the re-designed and the existing notes should remaina legal tender till 31st of January 2023 when the existing Naira notes will seize to be a legal tender till. The authorities also imposed a limit to the amount of cash bank customers can withdraw and this led to severe difficulties and hardship in the Nation. I recall a lady customer in one of the banks nearly stripped herself naked in protest for being unable to withdraw her money for her children’s medical needs.
The Supreme Court rose stoutly and strongly to stop the hardship and the wrong application and strategy of the Naira re-design policy by holding at page 590 – 591 of the report that:
Earlier in the Suit, The Supreme Court had made it an interim order that the new and old versions of the Naira notes should continue to circulate as a legal tender simultaneously pending the determination of the suit. The Government disobeyed the order. Rather, The President directed that only the old 200 naira noted should be circulated and there was no evidence before the court to show the implementation of even the limited directive. In condemning this act of disobedience by the government, The Supreme Court had this to say:
Mention must also be made of the release of protesters earlier this month. The protesters were arrested and detained after the August 2024 protest. These protesters who were detained for participating in the anti-government protest were granted bail by the Federal High Court who found out that their detention violated their constitutional rights to liberty and freedom of expression enshrined in Section 35 and 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Please recall that Section 35 of the Constitution provides for rights to personal liberty of the citizens while Section 39 makes provision for the right to freedom of expression and the press.
In my humble opinion, for every single case that justice appeared not to have been served, there are thousands of cases where justice have not only been done but have been seen to be done. It is for this reason I submit that the violent attack on judges and justices of our courts and the sustained blackmail going on against the entire judicial system at the moment is wrong and same cannot help this Nation or indeed anybody.
This leads me to considering the next part of this lecture, which is the Media and Legal Practitioner perspectives.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria recognizes the right to freedom of expression and that of the press as I stated earlier. This Section has been interpreted by our courts with regards to its meaning and scope. By virtue of this section, everybody is entitled to freedom of expression including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impact ideas and information without interference. See
Clement Aviomah vs The Commissioner of Police.
At page 121 of the report, Hon. Justice Abdu Aboki JSC, stated that:
His Lordship continued by saying that:
“He cannot, in the guise of exercising his freedom of expression or impacting information trample upon the rights of other persons in the society. He must not act in such a way that he defames their character or endangers their safety, health, order or morality”.
With regards to the Media and Judiciary, the golden rule of practice I submit, is that the media must not make any comment which will tend to prejudice a fair trial. This without prejudice to their duty to hold Government accountable. Chief Mrs. Farida Waziri, former Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) once said while commenting on media trial and the constitutional presumption of innocence that:
The Media should be weary of this. Trail by the media of criminal matters prejudices the mind of the populace and makes them hold the court in contempt and dishonor when it ultimately reaches a conflicting or different verdict. More often than not, allegations of compromise and corruption are made against the judge. This is very unhealthy for the development of our legal system and judicial process. In the case of
, it was held that:
Notwithstanding this admonition, we read all manner of things attacking even the personality of the judges and their judgements. In Nigeria today, it is common to see and hear both learned and unlearned people, literate and illiterate men and women, freely discussing and rendering opinions on matters that are pending before the courts, including what should be the judgement on the matter. When the judgement of the court goes contrary to the opinion earlier expressed in the media, the judge, to them has taken bribe. They will hold steadfastly to that position which may be completely wrong in law. However, when the judgement of the court coincides with the perceived opinion of the society, they will say
It is a settled principle of law that judgement is a product of the facts and the law placed before the court. The court of law and the court of public opinion do not operate by the same code. When the decision of the court which is based on facts and the law before the court runs contrary to the perception that the media discussions have created, you start hearing all manner of things from accusations to outright condemnation. It is my humble opinion that situations of this nature affect the trust, confidence, respect and independence of courts.
The attacks on the judiciary by the social media is even worst. Let me give few examples of what I have seen, read pr heard in this regard in recent times. An active citizen while talking on social media said in an interview that
Another person, a prominent individual commenting on the Federal High Court’s decision as the
Another person described a court’s judgement as
. Yet, another one person described a judgement as
A highly placed individual once said that
“ours is a society where people who have so much money buy judgements”.
The statement of this nature in my opinion cannot make the judiciary better. It appears to be a total condemnation which has the capacity to completely erode public trust and confidence. The desire for purification of the institution should take priority over total condemnation.
The pronouncement of Hon. Justice Moore Aselmo Abraham Adumein of the Supreme Court gave some very powerful insights about how judgements of courts are written. In the Local Government autonomy case of
, His Lordship stated at page 23 to 24 of the judgement as follows:
Our Media will be doing greater service to our judiciary by promising quality analysis of courts judgements by knowledgeable individuals. This can be done through lectures of this nature, analysis by informed men and women or through the publications of journals.
May I say that the time has come when people should struggle to know, not just struggle to be known. It is what we do with what we know that changes us. You cannot see it and miss it. Your words determine your world and of course, what you say determines what you see and our words largely determine our experience in our world.
As recently as Monday, November 18, I had cause to say from the Bar before one of the High Courts in Lagos while commenting on the conduct of the counsel on the other side. I said:
I dare say that the conduct of some of our colleagues are doing great disservice to public trust and confidence in our judicial system and in particular to the Judiciary as the last hope of the common man. To some us, to delay the hearing of a matter indefinitely has become a veritable strategy, but is this right?
Let me provide some background about what the society expects from us as Lawyers. First, Legitimate.
i. Kenneth Kaunda, the former President of Zambia stated at the Accra, Ghana Conference on Legal Education that:
The President went further to say that:
ii.
President, started what I consider as capturing the role of the lawyer in the 21stcentury regarding the Rule of Law generally and the practice of law in particular. This is what he said:
“From within and without is the clarion call that the legal profession should champion the Nigerian renaissance: it should be the harbinger of hope of our people and the repository of trust and confidence of the citizenry. The Legal Profession should insist that our democracy must be rooted in the Rule of Law and ensure the equality of every citizen, be he the President, Governor, or Local Government Chairman before the law. If Nigeria is to stand tall in the Committee of Nations, or If she to express a respected opinion within the civilized countries of the world, our democracy must be anchored by the rule of law. In this wise, the Judiciary must be fearless, fair and impartial while the Bar must be courageous, truly learned and well behaved.
Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN CFR,
went further to say: Jurisprudentially, a lawyer is a social Engineer who by his training stands for and defends the oppressed against the oppressor, the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich. We are expected in the present Nigeria to wage unrelenting war against arbitrariness, high handedness, wickedness of man to man, injustice, mis-governance or mis-rule, corruption and all social vices which have become the order of the day in this clime. Those of us in the legal profession either on the bench or at the bar must appreciate our roles in the society and within the context of any democratic dispensation.”
I had the grace of being elected as the General Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association at the time and this speech served as a driving force for the proactive posture of our Executive between August 2002 and August 2004.
iii. Hon. Justice I.C Pats Acholonu JSC CON of blessed memory had this to say on the same point.
The above captured the general expectation of Lawyers in the society. With particular reference to our responsibilities as advocates before the courts, several judgements have stated, affirmed and reaffirmed our role as ministers in the temple of justice. Our role is principally to be truthful and to assist the court in the just and expeditious determination of cases. The Code of Conduct also emphasized our duty not to urge on the court the defense we do not believe in. Many of us breech these responsibilities nowadays with reckless abandon. A few instances will suffice.
i.
particularly at Pg. 5, the Supreme Court per
said
Of course, the appeal was adjudged to be lacking in merit and same was dismissed.
ii.
vs.
of the court of appeal also stated that
“I cannot fault the decision of the Learned Trial Court in this appeal and so I resolve the issues against the appellants. I think counsel for the appellant at the lower court and in this appeal should bear responsibility for this charade and clear attempt of the appellant to seek the cover of illegality of contract to defraud the respondent or to frustrate the recovery of the money outstanding on the Aviation fuel supplied to the appellant. No counsel should aid or assist a client to pursue ignoble or fraudulent cause. This appeal is completely devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed “.
iii
the 1stRespondent counsel had used “debasing, scathing and unfortunate choice of words without any lota of prove” including words like “contumacious fabrication”, “fraud”, “collusion”, “treason”, “holy cows” In his respondent brief.
In condemning the act of the counsel, the supreme court said
His Lordship went further to say that
“the age long and secret traditional decorum of the bar must be protected maintained and held in high esteem in the discharge of counsel duties to their citizen. “I therefore deprecate strongly the choice of words used by the first respondent counsel in his brief of argument as one unbecoming of a legal practitioner.”
iv.
The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee in its directive in the case of Nigerian Bar Association vs. G.C Monyel had this to say
“A fair characterization of a Legal practitioner’s honour, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility. The question is which of the above qualities can the respondent, given the litany of his tendentious, shameless, unabashed contrivance said to possess? He is neither a shield in the defense of right nor will this kind of character, where lies the quality of truth in him? Is the word “honour” not a strange bed fellow. Can anyone credit him with an iota of fiduciary responsibility or fidelity?
Let me also say that in recent times, arbitration which ids generally accepted as an alternative dispute resolution is fast becoming a cause of action in the hands of some lawyers notwithstanding the fact that an arbitral award is regarded as a final conclusive judgement on all matters referred to it and the courts are enjoined as much as possible to uphold and enforce the award. The window open to challenge arbitral award is very restricted under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This is because, once parties have consented to arbitration, they have also consented to accept the final award of the Arbitrators. This is the Supreme Court admonition on this practice in the case of
Metroline Nig. Ltd & Ors vs. Mohammed Dikko “The unfortunate trend in which Litigants with the assistance of Counsel who fail to appreciate their duties as officers of the court all in a bid to win their client’s case by all means brings unsubstantiated and spurious challenges against otherwise good arbitration awards and the arbitral tribunal ought to be frowned upon and discouraged. The courts should not allow itself to be used as a tool to set aside otherwise good awards or frustrate legitimate arbitration awards”
The above authorities clearly demonstrate the attempt to reiterate the standard expected of legal practitioners in our courts. But what do we find in practice?
In a paper titled
delivered at the Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago Iwoye, Ogun State; I had this to say on the attitude of the Legal practitioner in court.
“I have noticed In practical terms the following tendencies which I submit are not only impacting negatively on proper administration of justice in Nigeria but also are responsible for the seeming gradual loss of trust and confidence in the judicial system.
i. Endless preliminary objections occasioning endless rulings
ii. Raising of jurisdiction as a camouflage to provide basis for frivolous interlocutory appeals.
iii. Applications for stay of further proceedings pending appeal thereby hanging the hearing and determination of cases at court of trial ad-infinitum
iv. Unending applications for adjournments
v. Frivolous petitions against trail judges.
We must recognize that attitude means the way of thinking or behaving about something. The manner, disposition, feelings and the tendency or orientation especially of the mind. The attitude of a good number of our colleagues have negative impact on the judiciary as the hope of the common man as far as speedy determination of disputes and efficient administration of Justice in Nigeria is concerned. Please remember that our attitude determines our altitude in life.
In addition to the authorities cited under this sub heading, our rules of professional conduct require us not only to display a respectful attitude towards the Bench but also to exhibit a high level of decorum, candour and fairness to the Court and to our colleagues. Furthermore, as Ministers in the temple of justice, the fact that an authority is authority is against our client’s case is no justification for why such an authority should be withheld from court. It is a reprehensible conduct for an advocate to urge on the court a defense which first, he does not believe in but also a defense that patently align to the case of his client. No man whether a common man or an uncommon man, rich or poor, or a business person including foreign investors will be willing to approach the court for the resolution of their dispute where they do not believe or are confident that they will get judgement within a reasonable time.
I submit therefore that one of the greatest disservice to the administration of Justice in our country is the employment of the strategy of delay and procrastination of cases in our courts. The time the court begins to give appropriate and commensurate sanctions including but not limited to punitive costs both against the clients and more particularly against the legal practitioners by the way of personal liabilities for cost, the better for the justice system. Like I stated earlier in this paper,
“a lawyer must be courageous enough to strive to uphold the truth and trumpet the truth to high heavens. Truth is the foundation of all knowledge and the cement of all societies. On the contrary, false tears society into pieces”.
Delivered by the distinguished Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Dele Adesina, SAN. This lecture explored the vital roles of the judiciary, media and legal practitioners in upholding democracy, safeguarding rights, and fostering justice in society.
