At a time like this, when some people or groups in the country, particularly some elements in the political class, are palpably desperate to get court verdicts in their favour, whether or not their case merits it, judges should be strong-hearted and never stop being guided by their conscience to deliver justice without fear or favour.

Beyond just performing their duties as the laws and professional ethics dictate, it is the crucial way the revered judiciary can actually serve as the last hope of the common man, harbinger of peace, and contribute to survival of democracy.

Therefore, the recent charge to the judges by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola,that they should refuse to be intimidated or influenced by anybody or group in the performance of their duties is a timely and commendable wake-up call for the judicial officials.

Ostensibly impelled by mounting public criticism of judges’ handling of high-profile political and election cases in Nigeria, the CJN has charged judges and judicial officials to be steadfast and courageous in performing their duties by not bowing to public opinion, criticism, emotions, or sentiments.

Ariwoola said though political cases in Nigeria expose judges to various threats and intimidations, which are sometimes more excruciating, painstaking, and endangering, no judge should succumb to such threats or intimidation to deviate from the spirit of the law or derogate from constitutional provisions.

He further charged judges and magistrates, particularly those of the lower courts who are close to the grassroots, to reposition courts in the country for better and more expeditious justice delivery. He urged the judicial officials to be guided by their conscience, saying “Once our conscience leads the way, every other good thing will naturally follow.”

Ariwoola, who will retire in August 2024 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70, gave the charge in Abuja at the opening session of a two-day workshop organised by the Court of Appeal for the review of last year’s election petitions at the tribunals, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court to identify areas of shortcomings with a view to finding ways to improve the process.

Undoubtedly, the charge merits deeper consideration. It could not have come at a more auspicious time than now when we are experiencing a deep crisis in the rule of law in Nigeria.

As the Chief Justice rightly observed, judges should not be cowed by public criticisms or public opprobrium. Criticism of judges and the judiciary can be traced back to ancient times. In fact, the concept of criticising judges and the legal system has been a recurring theme throughout human history. For instance, the Bible contains critiques of judges and the judicial system.

Critics like Dante Alighieri and Geoffrey Chaucer wrote extensively about the corruption and abuses of power by judges. Montesquieu and Voltaire lampooned judges for abusing their powers. Even judges criticize their fellow judges. Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning once said, “We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it, for there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than the freedom of speech itself.

It is the right of every man, in parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. All we ask is that those who criticise us should remember that, from the nature of our duties, we cannot reply to criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.”

What Denning rightly alluded to in the aforementioned comment is that no matter the criticism, judges must not descend into the public arena to engage with their critics. At all times, they must maintain equanimity and candor in the face of criticism. Descending into the arena or joining public controversy is undignified, unbefitting, and shameful for judges.

By their exalted position, judges ought not to engage with their critics in the public square. They should refrain from doing so. Criticism of judges’ conduct and judgments in the media is not embarrassing because judicial proceedings are conducted in open court, in the full glare of the public, thus providing members of the public first-hand information about the virtues and vices of the individual judges.

Our judges should remember that they are accountable to the people who constantly scrutinise their integrity, impartiality, and fairness in the dispensation of justice in open court. Addressing the High Court Journalists Association on December 3, 1964, Lord Denning said: “Justice has no place in darkness and secrecy. When a judge sits on a case, he himself is on trial…if there is any misconduct on his part, any bias or prejudice, there is a reporter to keep an eye on him.”

Unfortunately, many judgments delivered by our courts, especially the Supreme Court in recent times, have enmeshed the courts in a crisis of confidence, possibly the most serious crisis that has confronted our courts in recent years. Members of the public are holding their heads in shame and saying that justice has departed from our law courts and that all that is left in our courts are open robberies.

Their hope in the law courts as the bulwark of justice and an unbiased arbiter in the causes of the citizenry, amid the balkanizing influence of corrupt politicians and public figures, rightly or wrongly, seem to have been shattered.

This implies that justice and public perception are closely intertwined. Justice refers to the fair and impartial application of laws and rules to ensure equal rights while public perception refers to the way the public views and understands justice.

Public perception is essential to understanding justice because it reflects societal values, influences trust and legitimacy, and shapes the narrative around justice, ultimately impacting how justice is delivered and experienced. Public perception affects trust in the legal system. If the public perceives the system as unfair or biased, trust is eroded. In other words, justice is rooted in public confidence and public perception.

This is why it is said that justice must not only be done but must also be manifestly seen to be done. The essence of the need for justice to be manifestly seen to be done was observed by Lord Denning, in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lennon when he stated: “Justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking ‘The judge was biased.’”

Therefore, our courts are respectfully urged to rekindle the confidence of the members of the public in them. Public confidence legitimises the legal system, making court judgments more authoritative and acceptable. Confidence in law courts reduces conflicts and the resort to violence in the settlement of disputes. It encourages parties to resort to legal mechanisms for dispute resolution, reducing conflicts and promoting social harmony.
By rekindling public confidence, our law courts can restore trust and reduce the likelihood of corruption, as the public is more likely to report and resist corrupt practices.