- Says any attempt to gag lawyers from criticizing the judiciary in the media spells danger
By J.S. Okutepa, SAN
When his lordship the newly appointed and confirmed Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) was being confirmed, it was reported that his lordship promised to deal with senior lawyers who engaged themselves in criticizing courts and judiciary on social media and television stations. His lordship promised to deal decisively with these sets of lawyers to bring sanity and respect to the judiciary.
These answers, it was reported, came in response to questions said to have been posed by the president of the Senate Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio. For me, the first steps to take are for judicial authorities to engage the lawyers that engage in such conduct in respect of bad criticisms through appropriate channels that offer fair hearing and hear them. They may have their reasons for doing so.
Be that as it may, it is my view that no senior lawyer whether he be Senior Advocate of Nigeria or not and who is worth his professional salts in the legal profession should recklessly criticize judges and processes pending before the courts of law. It is wrong to do so, and it will be both contrary to the code of conduct and contemptuous of the court to do so.
But we must be very careful not to gag lawyers from expressing their opinions and offering criticisms of the judiciary on social media and national media platforms. It is constitutional for lawyers, either senior or junior to to express their feelings to the press. There are many reasons we need to be careful and avoid gagging lawyers from criticizing judges and judiciary on social media and other media platforms.
First, while it is true that there are channels to challenge judges and judicial misconduct, there appears to be inadequate and no prompt remedies for judicial abuse of power under our system of disciplinary procedures. The new Hon. CJN is respectfully urged to look at the disciplinary processes of discipline of judges both at the trial and in appellate courts and ensure that no judicial officer that is seen to have abused judicial discretion and powers is given a pat on the back by light punishment ditched out upon complaints.
Secondly, it is also recommended that there should be no sacred cows in the judiciary. When the complaining public or lawyers are led to believe that a judge has become so much untouchable or that such judex has godfathers within the disciplinary institution and nothing can come out of complaints, a tendency exists for ventilation of bottled grievances vide media discussions that are intended to expose such judicial officers that danced naked in adjudications.
Thirdly, the new Hon. CJN should do something about lawless judges who, under the guise of adjudications and performing judicial duties, engage themselves in lawlessness in adjudications. A judge it is submitted, engages in lawless adjudications when he decides matters contrary to express provisions of law and takes the law into his hand by deciding otherwise than as required by law and or deciding contrary to his judicial oaths.
Such judges allowed themselves to be influenced by factors other than purity of justice. One instance of such a lawless judge is where the judge ignores expressed provisions of law and engages in interpretations that frustrate the reception of evidence in support of pleaded facts or where judicial decisions are not rooted in the substance of justice but in the caricatures of it which is not justice, in other to support a predetermined conclusion already agreed by the judge.
I think there are huge burdens on the shoulders of the new CJN. These burdens cannot be discharged effectively and efficiently if there are already inherent agreements to gag lawyers from criticizing judges on social media and other traditional media platforms. I see nothing wrong in offering constructive criticisms of the judiciary on social media in respect of judgments and rulings that have been delivered.
Such responsible criticisms, in my view, are allowed to check judicial excesses. The judiciary should have units that monitor such views and see the substance in them and modify their stand in the interest of justice. There is also nothing wrong in criticizing judicial actions or inactions in the most appropriate and civilized ways with temperate languages that exposes evil inherent in any decision so that judiciary can get feedback from the public that it was set up to serve.
That is why I am not an advocate of judicial isolationism from criticisms. After all, judges are appointed to serve the interests of the public and where the interests of the public are not been served, anyone who is led to believe that justice has been battered and murdered should not be gagged up to speak on it.
Finally, for me, the only way he-goats must avoid fornication in public places is for those who are responsible for rearing she-goats to train the she-goats to cover their nakedness and for the she-goats not to go about naked in public places. The huge burdens on the shoulders of the new CJN therefore, in my view, for his lordship not to assume a set mindset to start with gagging lawyers from offering public criticisms of the judiciary but let his lordship lead by example and to instil in the judiciary the proper orientations so that they render judgement and decisions that are sound and above board or such decisions that are not being seen as products of a lawless judge.
