Guardian

PRAYER: Oh God! I beseech thee for the forgiveness of my sins and grant me of thy mercy. I beg of Thee that I may be awarded protection of faith, a belief which is accompanied by virtuous manners, a prosperous life which is followed by complete success, mercy, peace, forgiveness and Thy pleasure. I invoke Thy benevolence and Thy perfect words and beg protection from the mischief of things which Thou holdest in thou hand. Oh God! Thou alone can secure for me remission from penalties and remission of sins, Thy promise can never be shaken and the wealth of the wealthy ones cannot benefit them against Thee. Thou art pure and sublime and Thou art free from all blemishes. “Oh my Lord! Expand me my breast; Ease my task for me; and remove the impediment from my speech, so they may understand what I say,” Amen.

BEFORE I commence, I would like to mention that the last portion of the prayer I just read from the Holy Quran is the prayer of Moses to his Lord when he was about to embark on his mission to ancient Egypt. Moses prayed in appreciation of the enormity of the task before him as he set out to the citadel of oppression. Though, my task here is an honour bestowed by partners in the midst of friends; I made the decision to repeat the prayer for three reasons, Firstly, it reveals my awe of the distinguished audience I am about to address. Secondly, I feel the contents of my lecture are very important and must be delivered clearly. Lastly as an elderly man, my voice is not what it used to be as it gets increasingly strained as I speak. So I pray the Almighty keeps it strong enough to deliver my lecture audibly.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to deliver this year’s Annual Anniversary Lecture organized by the National Mirror Newspaper.

When I was contacted and given a free hand to discuss any topic of my choosing, I was keen to speak on a contemporary issue in relation to the Law and the Media. So I opted to speak about the “Relationship between the Law and E-media Practice in Nigeria.” In fact, I had already communicated this topic to the National Mirror and had already written a few pages when I came across an article in the New York Times on issues relating to Freedom of the Press in the United Kingdom. The article centered on the imminent threats to the Freedom of the Press in the United Kingdom, if the recommendations of increased regulatory control of the media made by the Commission of Inquiry into the “Phone hacking Scandal” and other illegal and unethical actions of Rupert Murdoch’s sensational tabloid Newspapers were to be fully implemented.

While reflecting on the issues raised in the said article and its import on the Nigerian scene, I immediately realized that my lecture must focus on the role of the media in the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and social justice in Nigeria. I also understood that based on my experience as a Judicial Officer for so many years culminating as the Head of this Nation’s Judicial arm of government, I realized the need to convey my understanding and the implications of a very, very important relationship in our democracy; the relationship between the Media and the Judiciary.

Though my initial topic is relevant to media practitioners and those in the legal profession, I feel that the topic I eventually settled on touches on some of the most critical questions affecting today’s Nigeria; it is far more important and shall be of benefit to a much wider audience than the former. Therefore, permit me to thank the editors of the National Mirror for giving me a free hand in choosing the topic of discussion.

Fundamentally, it is important to understand that the powers or freedoms enjoyed by both the Media and the Judiciary are mutually reinforcing. While the Courts, through various pronouncements and decisions properly define the rights and freedoms of the media under our laws, it is the Media that projects and oft time reinforces public confidence in Judicial action. This unwritten arrangement is a crucial link in every democracy. When it fails the result is anarchy.

On a previous occasion I had reason to speak briefly on this important relationship. Permit me to reproduce what was stated then: “A remarkable feature of the relationship between the judiciary and the media is that the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the media are both fundamental to the continued exercise, and indeed the survival of democratic liberties. Furthermore, while the judiciary plays a central role in the protection and sustenance of media independence, judicial independence and integrity is also dependant on these freedoms.

Consequently, I feel that the days when the possibility of active communication between the judiciary and the media was regarded as an anathema, are wrong in principle and should be gone forever. This is an age of communication in which, without any infringement on their independence, they can and should speak to each other, to ensure transparent administration of justice and preserve the freedom of the press which are indeed cardinal pillars of constitutional democracy.”

During my time of stewardship as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, I developed a media policy and attempted to increase discourse with the media in a bid to increase transparency of judicial action especially regarding efforts towards judicial reform.

It is important to note that though a healthy relationship is essential between the two, it is often strained. The reason is not far-fetched. A veteran American court reporter, once described his profession as: “For the most part we are untrained and deadline crazed, with short attention spans and an inbred preference for heat over light and simplicity over nuance.

In contrast, a Judge of the Canadian Supreme Court describes judges in the following terms: “…judges like to think of themselves as “trained” and not overly concerned about deadlines, and possessed of long attention spans, a penchant for nuance, and a confident belief that every word they utter sheds light on the problem at hand, if not on the larger world beyond.”

How, one may ask, can such opposites co-exist in a healthy, productive relationship?

My answer is that they can and must, if we want to sustain a society built on the rule of law. Despite occasional discomfort, a free press and an independent judiciary must work together to foster a society committed to the rule of law. The rule of law cannot exist without open justice and deep confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice. And the media is essential to building and maintaining that public confidence. I will begin by discussing public confidence in the judiciary as a cornerstone of the rule of law. Against that background, I will offer some thoughts on what the legal profession can do to enhance relationships between the media and the Judiciary.

One of the features of all societies sharing a cultural commitment to the rule of law is public confidence in the justice system and the judiciary. Unless members of the public respect the courts that administer the law, they will not settle their disputes through the courts. They will not obey court orders. Judgments become mere edicts that are, to borrow Shakespeare’s words, “like clanging bells, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.” In his most recent book, Making Our Democracy Work, Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court poses a puzzling question; “why does the public accept and follow decisions made by the judiciary, a body he describes as “inoffensive, technical, and comparatively powerless.” The answer to this question rests in the confidence of the people.

Howe does one build and maintain this public confidence? Obviously, one must appoint competent judges who observe the highest ethical standards of integrity. One must educate youths and public generally about the justice system and what judges do. One must ensure that the public has access to justice. However, fundamental to maintaining and building confidence in the judiciary is publicizing what judges do.

In the 19th Century, English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham warned against secrecy in the administration of justice:

Where there is no publicity, there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.

Those words still ring true today. In countries sharing the common law tradition, the open courts principle is a fundamental, indeed a constitutional principle. Nonetheless, despite the courts’ openness, people may still have little real understanding of how they operate. Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to attend hearings and peruse court records. This is where the media plays a role. Only through the efforts of the press can the vast majority be informed of proceedings before the courts and their judgments. In his book on the U.S. Supreme Court and the press, Joe Mathewson aptly makes this observation: “When the Court speaks, who listens? Who transmits each new rule of law to the citizenry? Even in the Internet era when the Court posts its opinions promptly on its own Web site, both justices and citizens still depend on journalists to get the word out to the broad public. It is still reporters who immediately read the often challenging legal language and make sense of it for lay understanding.”

This places the media in a position of crucial importance, as intermediaries between the legal system and the people it serves. They report on what happens in the courts. And they offer critical reflections on the process.

The duty and right to report includes the right to criticize the way the courts work and the judgments judges render. The right to disagree in part of the democratic process. It contributes, in the long run, to transparency and to confidence in the judiciary.

This said, we would be naïve not to acknowledge that incomplete, distorted or one-sided press coverage can cause lasting damage.

Unfortunately, our current reality of deep rooted corruption or the perception of it on both sides of the divide appear to seriously undermine the credibility of both institutions in the eyes of the Nigerian Public. However, due to the sensitivity of Judiciary probity, the Judiciary has received the worst end of the stick in recent years. Fairly or unfairly the public perception of judicial action in Nigeria is largely consistent with the general perception of government. The judiciary is increasingly associated with corruption, partisanship, sluggishness and other unfit adjectives when dealing with conflicts that are brought before the courts.

In my speech on assumption of duties as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, I grappled with this problem. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that it is immaterial whether or not this assessment is fair, for as Judges we must be seen to rise above the tide of systemic corruption and other filthy afflictions that have become commonplace in Nigeria today.

The main objective of the (ongoing) Judicial reform process is to restore or enhance public confidence in the Judiciary. Although the magnitude of the task is onerous and a lot of good work is being done, the gains have been muddied and exasperated by the unfortunate consequences of the public spat between the heads of the highest courts in the country. That murky situation remains the most reported issue regarding the judiciary for quite some time.

To be continued