Justice! Justice!! Justice!!! This immediately reminds me of the traditional way our elders trigger important conversations in Yoruba land, the tribe in Nigeria to which I belong. It underscores the gravity of the discourse about to be engaged in. In contemporary times, if there is any concept that is deeply worrisome in our society—indeed, I dare say even more troubling than politics and governance at large—it is justice. The search for justice in the land is becoming elusive in Nigeria. The presupposition, as one reflects on this, is that justice has somehow escaped from the country. Can this truly be so? If so, where has it disappeared to—Wonderland?
Some of my educated friends often ask me about the meaning of justice. Each time I am confronted with this question, I find myself struggling. Is it justice according to the law that I am to explain to them? Or justice according to the whims and caprices of judicial officers or arbiters? Or simply natural justice? As I grapple—and sometimes even “confuse” them with these layers—I often end up by concluding quite simply that justice is just justice; if you like, call it fairness. In taking this position, I deliberately avoid the dense jurisprudential underpinnings embedded in the concept and rest instead on its philosophical connotation.
Let me confess that, as much as possible, I avoid publicly x-raying the challenges of the judiciary in view of my vantage position in the profession. It is in this connection that I pertinently recall, at this juncture, a timeless Yoruba proverb: “Àgbà awo kì í bá awo jẹ́.” The elder, custodian of sacred knowledge, does not conspire to desecrate the very institution he is entrusted to protect. This briefly summarizes the delicate position in which I find myself as a senior legal practitioner, an opinion leader, and a moulder who must not be seen to wash too much of the sacred grove’s dirty linen in the open.
However, I am constrained, in light of current occurrences, to invite you in this column to journey with me into one of the most delicate yet defining pillars of any civilized society: the administration of justice. It is a subject as old as organized human existence itself, yet as contemporary as the headlines that confront us daily. For beyond the technicalities of statutes, procedures, and judicial pronouncements lies a deeper, often neglected dimension of justice: perception. Indeed, it has long been settled in legal philosophy that justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The question that must engage our collective conscience today is whether, in Nigeria, justice still satisfies this dual requirement.
The judiciary, as we know, is not merely an institution; it is the moral compass of the state. It is the last refuge of the common man—the arena where power is expected to bow before reason, and where rights are vindicated against arbitrariness. Without it, society descends into chaos, and the rule of law becomes an empty slogan. That explains why, in any military coup, the only surviving institution often remains the judiciary. Yet, the potency of the judiciary does not lie solely in its constitutional powers. Its true strength resides in the confidence the people repose in it. Once that confidence is eroded, even the most well-reasoned judgments risk being dismissed in the court of public opinion. The truism or otherwise of this is best left to your conclusion in contemporary times.
Again, in recent times, there has been a growing disquiet among citizens—not necessarily regarding the existence of judicial decisions, but the credibility and transparency surrounding them. It is no longer uncommon to hear the now-popular refrain, “Go to court,” uttered not as a genuine invitation to seek justice, but as a cynical acknowledgment of a process perceived to be slow, uncertain, or, in some cases, compromised. This shift in public sentiment is both dangerous and instructive: dangerous because it undermines the very foundation of our democratic order, and instructive because it signals the urgent need for introspection and reform.
Let us be clear: the problem is not always that justice is not being done. Indeed, many judicial officers continue to discharge their duties with commendable integrity, often under very challenging circumstances. The issue, more often than not, is that justice is not seen to be done. And perception, whether we like it or not, is a powerful force. In governance, as in law, perception can sometimes outweigh reality. A system that is opaque, excessively technical, or painfully slow creates fertile ground for suspicion, regardless of the actual intentions of those who operate within it.
There are several dimensions to this challenge. The first is delay. The aphorism that justice delayed is justice denied is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it is a lived reality for countless litigants. Cases linger for years—sometimes decades—moving from one adjournment to another, and from one interlocutory application to the next. By the time judgment is eventually delivered, the subject matter may have lost its relevance—and the parties, their faith. Indeed, where such cases travel all the way to the apex court, the final decision often outlives the parties. In some instances, there have been three generations of substituted parties due to death. In such circumstances, even a sound judgment struggles to command respect, because the process that produced it has already been discredited by time.
The second dimension is accessibility. The legal process, with all its necessary formalities, has become increasingly alien to the average citizen. Courtrooms are perceived as intimidating spaces, governed by language and procedures that exclude rather than include. When people cannot understand the process, they are less likely to trust its outcomes. Justice must not only be fair; it must be intelligible. That is why it is rather surprising when some judicial officers relish the use of high-sounding vocabulary in their judgments—perhaps to impress themselves or even the lawyers, but certainly not the parties for whom the judgments are meant.
Even as a lawyer, I sometimes struggle to comprehend certain judgments of some of my law lords. This reminds me of my days in academia, where it was sometimes considered a mark of intellectual prowess to write papers that readers found difficult to understand. In truth, that is failure, because no idea has been effectively communicated. The same applies to judgments of courts. They must not only be intelligible but also simple enough for the parties to understand why they have won or lost. There is nothing to be proud of when a judgment, due to unnecessary verbosity, cannot be understood. It is no achievement to unleash so much vocabulary on parties that they cannot digest.
The third issue is consistency and coherence in judicial pronouncements. Nothing erodes confidence faster than the perception that similar cases yield markedly different outcomes without clear justification. While the doctrine of stare decisis is meant to ensure predictability, its inconsistent application creates confusion and fuels suspicion.
The law, in its majesty, must speak with a voice that is both authoritative and consistent—not vague or opaque. This brings us to the challenge of conflicting judgments of appellate courts. While attempts have been made to address this, not much traction has been gained. The situation becomes even more troubling when such conflicting decisions emanate from the apex court. It throws confusion into the jurisprudence of the country and makes it difficult for lawyers to render sound opinions to clients. The situation is gradually degenerating to the early days of equity, where outcomes varied with the Chancellor’s foot.
Then there is the ever-sensitive matter of judicial independence. In a polity where political contestations are fierce and stakes are high, the judiciary inevitably finds itself at the centre of controversy. Allegations—whether substantiated or not—of external influence, forum shopping, or strategic litigation further complicate public perception. It must be emphasized that even the mere existence of such allegations, whether true or not, is damaging. In matters of justice, appearance is as critical as reality. Thus, there is an urgent need to find ways of insulating our judiciary from political contestations. Alternative mechanisms must be fashioned to shield judicial officers from political battles. It is equally concerning that the purity of our jurisprudence has been contaminated by electoral jurisprudence.
At this juncture, the judiciary, as the custodian of justice, must be seen to uphold not only the letter but also the spirit of this wisdom in the rule of law. It must rise above reproach—not merely in conduct, but also in perception.
What then is the way forward?
First, there must be a renewed commitment to transparency. Judicial processes should, as much as practicable, be open and accessible. The use of technology can be significantly enhanced to ensure that proceedings are recorded, transmitted, and, where appropriate, made available to the public. The assignment of cases to judges must be technology-driven, unless we are suggesting that some judicial officers appointed are not competent. Discretionary allocation of cases is a threat to transparency and neutrality. The applicable technology is both cheap and readily available. Transparency dispels suspicion and builds trust.
Second, there is an urgent need to tackle delay through decisive reforms. Case management systems must be strengthened, frivolous adjournments discouraged, and judicial capacity expanded. Judges must be empowered to take firm control of their courts, ensuring that justice is not held hostage by procedural manoeuvres. There is no doubt that many of the rules of court—except perhaps the recently pronounced Rules of the Supreme Court—are themselves harbingers of delay. All courts must, as a matter of urgency, take a cue from the apex court rules.
Third, legal education and public enlightenment must be prioritized. Citizens must be equipped with a basic understanding of how the justice system operates. A society that understands its institutions is better positioned to trust them. Most importantly, the language of justice must be made party-friendly. It is no accident that Latin was phased out in England, our legal progenitor.
Fourth, accountability mechanisms within the judiciary must be both robust and credible. While judicial independence must be jealously guarded, it must not be mistaken for judicial infallibility. Where genuine instances of misconduct arise, they must be addressed promptly and transparently. Academics, in this regard, are not doing enough, as they ought to serve as reviewers of judicial decisions, particularly those of the apex court. This is not to vilify, but to safeguard and guide. The court itself is not infallible, and academic review provides an essential check against what may be perceived as judicial impunity.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, there must be a cultural reorientation within the legal profession. Lawyers, as officers of the court, owe a duty not only to their clients but to the integrity of the system. The temptation to exploit procedural loopholes for tactical advantage must be resisted. The pursuit of justice must take precedence over the pursuit of victory. The era of churning out judgments, as opposed to delivering justice, must come to an end. I am not oblivious to the efforts of some courts—particularly the apex court—to ameliorate these challenges, but the heads of courts at other levels need to step up their game, recognizing also the funding challenges in some instances.
Distinguished readers, the survival of our democracy and society depends, in no small measure, on the credibility of our justice system. Laws may be enacted, policies formulated, and institutions established, but without a judiciary that commands trust, these efforts rest on a fragile foundation. Justice is the glue that binds society together; when it is perceived to be compromised, the bonds of unity begin to fray.
In conclusion, we must remind ourselves that justice is not an abstract ideal; it is a lived experience. It is felt in the fairness of processes, the timeliness of decisions, and the clarity of outcomes. It is reflected in the confidence with which citizens approach the courts and the respect with which they receive judicial pronouncements. To achieve this, we must go beyond ensuring that justice is done; we must ensure that it is seen, understood, and believed. For, in the final analysis, a justice system that is not trusted is a justice system that is weakened—and a nation that cannot trust its justice system stands on uncertain ground. The task before us, therefore, is not merely to defend the judiciary, but to strengthen it in both substance and perception. Only then can we truly say that justice, in its fullest sense, has been served.