Court Judgements Are Open to Criticism, Ben Nwabueze Centre Replies CJN, NBA

•Declares foreign nationals avoid settling disputes in Nigerian courts like plague

Wale Igbintade

The Ben Nwabueze Centre for Constitutional Studies and the Rule of Law has described statements attributed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) threatening to discipline lawyers criticising the judgements of the apex court as misguided.

In a statement, titled, ‘Court Judgements are Open to Criticism,’ that was signed by the Coordinator, Ben Nwabueze Centre for Constitutional Studies, Chijioke Okoli, the Centre stated that administration of justice was a social good of which the general public are the consumers.

According to the centre, it was inconceivable to deny consumers an opinion on the product, especially one which they are forced to purchase in the circumstances.

The centre added that apart from the critical need for public accountability of all facets and institutions of the state apparatus, including the judiciary, criminalisation of criticism of judges was not consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined in the Nigerian constitution.

It stated that the Nigerian public and the legal community in particular needed to be reminded that criticism of judges could be traced to biblical times, when St. Paul in Acts of the Apostles (chapter 23, vs.3) trenchantly criticised the judges who subjected him to punishment for acting contrary to the law in his view, and unflatteringly lampooned them as, “whited sepulchers.”

The centre added that even judges were known to criticise themselves in their judgements, sometimes quite trenchantly.

The statement added: “It is obvious that some of the recent judgements of the Nigerian courts, especially the Supreme Court, in high profile political cases have generated understandable controversy.

“Understandable, because some seemingly settled principles of law have been made by the decisions to appear not so settled and also challenged many people’s sense of justice. It is equally not in doubt that some of the criticisms are beyond the pale, degenerating in some cases to personal vituperative attacks on individual judges.

“Some of the disagreements, especially by some lay persons, undoubtedly appear to have been disagreeably expressed.  It is obvious that some of the recent judgements of the Nigerian courts, especially the Supreme Court, in high profile political cases have generated understandable controversy.

“Understandable, because some seemingly settled principles of law have been made by the decisions to appear not so settled and also challenged many people’s sense of justice. It is equally not in doubt that some of the criticisms are beyond the pale, degenerating in some cases to personal vituperative attacks on individual judges. Some of the disagreements, especially by some lay persons, undoubtedly appear to have been disagreeably expressed.

“Indeed, administration of justice is a social good and of which the general public are the consumers. How could the consumers conceivably be denied an opinion on the product, especially one which they are forced to purchase in the circumstances?

“Lest we forget that the people of Imo State and neighbouring Anambra State, are having to endure the consequences of an apparently deeply loathed politician occupying the position of Governor, courtesy of a Supreme Court judgment.

“Can they justifiably be denied the right to criticism of the otherwise insufferable position they have been boxed into, and as has found expression in their denial of the occupier’s legitimacy with the cynical term ‘Supreme Court Governor?    

“Truth be told, these consumers and their advisers have had cause for serious worry with the trend in the recent past. For many areas of law and procedure the Nigerian legal practitioner is routinely confronted with conflicting decisions of the superior courts, including the apex court.”

It added: “This makes the lawyers’ job almost impossible bearing in mind that in many significant ways the law, according to the legal philosopher Wendell Holmes, is nothing more pretentions than “the prophecies of what the courts will do in fact.”

“It is clear that there would be nothing short of crisis of the rule law if the Court becomes afflicted with recurring schizophrenia.

“This state of affairs should worry more all concerned stakeholders especially the NBA whose motto is promotion of the rule of law. Aside the befuddling conflicting decisions of the apex court, there is its undue attachment to technicalities which is clearly at variance with the magisterial intellectual gravitas of such courts in other jurisdictions.

“It would for example be difficult for an intelligent lay person to understand the sense in the Supreme Court making a fetish of whether a court process was signed in the name of a person or a law firm, and nullifying otherwise meritorious cases notwithstanding that issues of life and death may be involved.

“Adverting to the APC v. Machina case, one of the surprises is that some informed persons are apparently surprised that the populace was bestirred into raising pointed questions.

“It was most curious for the court to focus on the sterile technical issue of the form of action and avoided the substance which involved issues fundamental to not only to the understanding of the extant Electoral Act 2022 but also the architecture and nature of Nigerian democracy.

“The court, it must be borne in mind, has whilst standing on technicality seemingly circumscribed the choice of voters in the Yobe North senatorial district regarding their representative. And this was notwithstanding that the Court had many times in the past cited with approval the almost century old Lord Atkin’s celebrated criticism of placing undue importance on forms of action in United Australia v. Barclays Bank [1941] A.C. 1, 29:

“When these ghosts of the past stand in the path of justice clanking their mediaeval chains the proper course of the Judge is to pass through them undeterred.”