Judges Are Kings In A Court Of Law: They Do No Wrong

By Amusan Tawfiiq ‘Lekan

INTRODUCTION

Pitiable and abysmal won’t do justice to the description of how muddled and barricaded one set of individuals called Politicians have made every path through which the common man on the street— the ordinary citizen— could spontaneously access and get justice from the court of law whenever the situation now demands in Nigeria. These individuals have almost succeeded in converting the crop of superior courts in Nigeria to a warehouse for the compilation of political shenanigans— pilling up the court’s registry with a country of suits, filling all manner of applications anyone can think of, before and after election. Frivolity never existed in their dictionary. Even when they finally get to the Supreme Court, they will still wish there could be another court they could approach.  Yet, at every slightest apportionment of anything contrary to what they expect from court, they go all out desecrating the sacredness of this same institution which they would have praised to the high heavens had their ox not been gored.

BACKGROUND

A Federal High Court Judge sitting in Abuja, Hon. Justice Inyang Ekwo, delivered judgment in a political case involving the Peoples Democratic Party, the Ebonyi state’s incumbent Governor, Engr. Dave Umahi and his Deputy, Mr. Eric Kelechi Igwe on the 8^th of March, 2022 finding in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party. As expected, the outcome of the judgment did not sit well with His Excellency and, like every typical Nigerian on the losing end of a court’s judgment would, he ventured into hurling a long tirade of dishonourable and contumelious remarks not only at the judgment (which may of course be pardonable) but also, regrettably, the personality of his lordship who delivered the judgment. Provided here is a link to the online report of the said Press Conference {https://thenigerialawyer.com/umahii-reacts-to-court-ruling-says-judge-lacks-powers-to-remove-him/}.

THE MISCHIEF BY EMOTIONS

While it is absolutely normal to criticize a court’s decision for whatever healthy reason— which is even common among the Legal Practitioners— it’ll be an utterly disgraceful exercise to embark on attacking the personality of any judge who hands down a “controversial” decision. Making it more distasteful would be where the reason for launching such attack is hinged on the mere fact that the said decision is not in one’s favour or that it doesn’t actually tally with one’s expectation, irrespective of whether or not one even has the professional knowledge required to understand the judgment in the first place.

It is important to state in passing that this writer is not unmindful of the fact that by the doctrine of stare decisis, judges of inferior courts (or of whatever court at all) are, by principle, required to follow the decisions of their superior in the top reaches of the court’s hierarchy. This followership is however not to be done in a slavish manner but only where the facts are impari materia, for “facts” are the springboard upon which the application of precedents is always hung.

It will therefore be very absurd for anyone to allow emotions push them to assume that a whole Federal High Court Judge does not know the elementary principle that he’s to follow a precedent from the Supreme Court particularly where such was even brought to his attention while hearing the matter and also to assume that, by choosing not to follow the decision of the supreme court, he doesn’t know the implications of what he may be leaving at stake if the matter eventually goes to the Court of Appeal where they may not spare him with fiery and harsh words of chastisement. There are a lot of decided cases with clear and lucid words of warning in this regard which altogether should make it very impracticable for anyone to allow emotions get the better of them by doing any of those assumptions.

In Okoniji v. Mudiaga Odge (1985) 10. S.C 267, for instance, the Supreme Court per ESO, J.S.C (as he then was) in very strong terms let out words of warning to the Court of Appeal (and by extension, all other lower courts) about the due observance of respect required of it from them by following its decisions, no matter how wrong, inasmuch as the facts involved are similar. In the following strong words, the Supreme Court held;

“In the hierarchy of court in this country, as in all other common law countries, one thing is clear, HOWEVER LEARNED A LOWER COURT CONSIDERS ITSELF TO BE AND HOWEVER CONTEMPTUOUS OF THE HIGHER COURT, that lower court is still bound by the decision of the higher court… I hope it will never happen again whereby the lower court of appeal in this country or any lower court for that matter would deliberately go against the decision of this court and in this case, even to the extent of not considering the decision when those decision were brought to the notice of that court. This is the discipline of law. This is what makes the law certain and prevents it from being an ass.” (Emphasis is mine).

Having put in a few words on the mischief which sheer emotions may have pushed into some critics’ minds— and for a number of reasons which are not unconnected with the peculiarities as well as the present status of the said-case— I’ll refrain from commenting on the correctness or the otherwise of it. Instead, I’ll focus further on the reason for making this article.

THE KINGSHIP OF A JUDGE (AS AN ADJUDICATOR)

This is a metaphorical usage borrowed from a system traceable to the typical African traditional society wherein the king is often regarded as a sovereign who does no wrong, regardless of whether his verdicts are just or not. The borrowing in this regard is however with a whole lot of modifications, seeing as, at all time, the Judge’s primary and main mandate is to always do justice. But then—and this is where all these hypotheses will make sense— we live in a world wherein justice may not have a single, universal meaning. What an accused person will term as justice may differ from what the Prosecution or even the society may, in their own assessment, term as justice. Does anyone, of those three parties, whose expectation of justice may not be met, then go around accusing and lashing out at the judge, calling him all sorts of names?

After going as far as calling his lordship a “hatchet man”, Gov. Dave Umahi was still quoted to have said, “we have petitioned him to NJC and we will follow it up to ensure that this man (referring to Justice Ekwo) is brought to justice”. As a litigant who feels aggrieved by the decision of any court—as long as such court is not the supreme court (I won’t like raising your hopes about an “application for review”)— there are available statutory options through which such a decision can be legally attacked. Personality-attack and issuance of threat about possible maintenance of a disciplinary action against a judicial officer just for the singular fact that one lost in the suit wherein he presided are definitely not in the options. Scaffolding on the English case of Sirros v. Moore (1974) 3 All ER 776, the Nigerian Court of Appeal per Akaahs, J.C.A held in the case of NDEFO v. OBIESE & ORS (2000) LPELR-6088 (CA) as follows;

“It has been accepted in our law that no action is maintainable against a judge for anything said or done by him in the exercise of a jurisdiction which belongs to him. The words which he speaks are protected by an absolute privilege. The orders which he gives and the sentences which he imposes cannot be made the subject of civil proceedings against him. NO MATTER THAT THE JUDGE WAS UNDER SOME GROSS ERROR OR IGNORANCE or was actuated by envy, hatred and malice and all uncharitableness, he is not liable to action. The remedy of the party aggrieved is to APPEAL TO A COURT OF APPEAL or to apply for habeas corpus, or a writ of error or certiorari, or take some steps to reverse his ruling.” (Emphasis is mine).

This is not to, with a wave of hand, rule out the possibility of a judge being complicit in what could make him face the disciplinary committee of the Judicial officers but until the legally recognized reasons together with cogent evidence substantiating same surface, a judge is always immune from any action arising from whatever decision he handled to the best of his judicial ability.  Stating the reasons behind this protection, the Supreme Court per Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C in EGBE V ADEFARASIN & ANOR (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 549 at p. 567 held as follows;

“The principle at law of exemption from being sued for matters done by judges in their judicial capacity is of great importance. It is necessary to the free and impartial administration of justice in that, the person administering it should be uninfluenced by fear and unbiased by hope. Judges have not been vested with this privilege for their own protection merely, it is calculated for the benefit of the people by ensuring to them a calm, steady and impartial administration of justice. It is a principle coeval with the law of the land and the dispensation of justice in this country; and is founded on the very frame of the constitution. It is to be met with in the earliest books of law, and has been continued down to the present time without one authority or dictum to the contrary that I have been able to find.”

CONCLUSSION

It’s quite commendable that less than 24 hours after publication of the said vituperative interview granted by the Governor, a press statement was released by the Nigerian Bar Association, under the stewardship of Mr. Olumide Akpata describing the outburst of the Governor as an unguarded and totally unwarranted attack on the Judiciary for a whole lot of reasons accessible in the link supplied hereunder {https://thenigerialawyer.com/umahis-reaction-to-court-order-unacceptable-says-nba-president-demands-immediate-apology-retraction-of-statements/}. An instant retraction of all the diatribes with a concomitant wide publication of apology were therefore demanded of the Governor which, as reported herein {https://barristerng.com/court-judgement-umahi-makes-u-turn-tenders-apology-to-nba/} were complied with in a matter of hours. This act of comradeship from the NBA is once again laudable and timely so as for the judiciary to retain the respect it should command from other arms of government.

Amusan Tawfiiq ‘Lekan is a 500L Student of the Faculty of Law, Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached via Vickmanbaolad@gmail.com as well as +2348108012253