Two recent incidents whereby journalists were prevented from covering court proceedings are not only curious, but they also amount to a violation of the constitutional rights of press freedom, in the absence of any reason to warrant a derogation of that right. Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression and the press, stating specifically that: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas, and information without interference.”
  
Recently, the Chief Magistrate of Yaba Magistrate Court, Adeola Olatubosun, barred journalists from covering the arraignment of a couple, Pastors Azuka and Mary Ohez, accused of fraud.The accused persons were alleged to have committed the offence by aiding one Chijoke Ezekirian to defraud a company, Climax Lubricant Industries, through false prophecies. They were arraigned on two counts of conspiracy and fraud preferred against them by the police. When the case came up for arraignment, Magistrate Olatubosun sent journalists out of her court and then arraigned the couple behind closed doors.
   
Similarly, the Federal High Court, Ilorin Judicial Division, prevented journalists from entering the court premises to cover the trial of the immediate past governor of Kwara State, Dr. AbdulFatah Ahmed, who was brought to the court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over alleged N10 billion financial mismanagement while in office. Curiously, journalists were denied access to the court premises by the police and court Registrar on “order from above”. It took the intervention of the EFCC spokesperson, Dele Oyewale, for journalists to eventually enter the court premises but they were still denied entry into the court proceedings. 

   
By section 36 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, the proceedings of a court or tribunal are to be held in public. In other words, members of the public have a right to access and witness court trials. However, on rare occasions, members of the public may be excused from observing court sessions.  For instance, judges are obligated to maintain order and safety in their courtrooms. Therefore, a judge may be justified in excluding persons who aim to disrupt proceedings or intimidate witnesses. Also, a judge may close a proceeding to safeguard and protect the identities of vulnerable witnesses (such as minors) or witnesses who are in danger due to their expected testimonies (such as undercover officers). 
 
Given the fundamental nature of the right of the people to access and witness court trials, there must be cogent and compelling reasons before a court can hold a private proceeding. A court must show that it is precluding the public from witnessing a proceeding in the overriding interest of the parties in the matter and or the society. In the instant cases, the two judicial authorities did not deem it necessary to explain the reason for preventing members of the press from carrying out their legal, social, and moral obligations to the public. To that extent, their actions amount to judicial rascality and abuse of judicial powers.
   
Not only did the subject jurists act inappropriately, but their conduct also raised questions as to whether they had a personal interest in the matter. As Oliver Wendell Holmes advised in Cowley v. Pulsifer (Mass .1884): “It is desirable that the trial of causes should take place under the public eye … because it is of the highest moment that those who administer justice should always act under the sense of public responsibility and that every citizen should be able to satisfy himself with his own eyes as to the mode in which a public duty is performed.”
   
Corroborating this stance, Hon. T.S Ellis stated as follows: “Our history tells us that judicial independence must first be constitutionally conferred and guaranteed, and then, importantly, it must be earned and periodically redeemed by the judiciary through its actions … From this, it follows that judicial independence depends to some degree on the maintenance of judicial transparency; what judges do – the process and product of adjudication – must be largely open to public scrutiny, else risk giving rise to a threat to judicial independence. Secret proceedings, including unwarranted or excessive sealing of court records, engender suspicion, mistrust, and a lack of confidence in the judicial process, and, if not well understood as necessary, such proceedings will likely lead to attempts to limit judicial authority and independence.”
   
There are no peculiar or novel circumstances surrounding the cases under discourse to warrant privacy or protection from media scrutiny. Yet the courts decided to clog the freedom of the press as guaranteed by Sections 22 and 39(1) of the Constitution arbitrarily. A free press is indispensable in a democratic society because “The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, [state], and local levels, it is the public’s watchdog, activist, and guardian as well as educator, entertainer, and contemporary chronicler. Press freedom is an essential pillar of any democracy. As the eyes and ears of the public, journalists must be able to report upon matters of public interest without fear of arrest or other forms of interference.” 
   
Can media practitioners effectively exercise their constitutional responsibilities and rights with the fetters being placed on them by the judiciary? As the fourth estate of the realm, the press will not bow to any harassment and intimidation of journalists by any authority in the lawful discharge of their duties. Ironically, the judiciary which ought to be the foremost promoter of press freedom being the embodiment of the rule of law is clamping down on the same unlawfully. The actions of Magistrate Olatubosun and the Federal High Court Ilorin are a threat to press freedom and by extension democracy. 
   
Journalists are constitutionally imbued with the right to report on issues of public interest without fear of harassment or intimidation. Any form of interference from anybody no matter his level of standing in society is unacceptable, as all efforts must be made to guarantee the safety of media practitioners and uphold press freedom. The leadership of the National Judicial Council and Judicial Service Commissions of the states should investigate this vexatious issue to avert a future recurrence.