In far away United Kingdom, a new frontier of battle has begun
between users of the popular social media and the law enforcement authority
following some new sets of guidelines on how not to make comments concerning
ongoing court proceedings.
In Nigeria however, it is a different kettle of
fish entirely because those clothed with the legal authority as law
enforcement agents are the worst culprits of engaging in unwholesome practices
in the media that undermine equitable dispensation of substantial justice.
On one hand, the British legal authority say those clear sets of
advisory guidelines were issued to protect litigants from being denied
substantial justice due to prejudices possibly conveyed in comments made in the
social media by persons who may or may not be directly involved in the process.
But members of the online community see these guidelines as another frontier of
consistent pattern of attack against freedom of speech.
Dateline December 4th 2013: the popular British private television
Skynews interviewed the United Kingdom’s government’s top legal adviser who
affirmed that the new social media guidelines for users will help ‘facilitate
commentary in a lawful way’.
As stated earlier, the
import of the new official British directive is that Facebook and Twitter
users will be shown previously unpublished legal notes to stop them
inadvertently breaking the law by commenting on court cases online.
Attorney General Dominic
Grieve QC said the advisories, which have previously been issued only to print
and broadcast media outlets on a "not for publication" basis, are
designed to make sure that fair trials take place.
He said he had changed
the policy to stop the public tripping over legal pitfalls by commenting on
court cases in a potentially prejudicial manner.
"Blogs and social
media sites like Twitter and Facebook mean that individuals can now reach
thousands of people with a single tweet or post," he said.
"This is an
exciting prospect, but it can pose certain challenges to the criminal justice system. In
days gone by, it was only the mainstream media that had the opportunity to
bring information relating to a court case to such a large group of people that
it could put a court case at risk", he stated.
"That is no longer
the case and is why I have decided to publish the advisories that I have
previously only issued to the media. This is not about telling people what
they can or cannot talk about on social media - quite the opposite in fact.
It's designed to help facilitate commentary in a lawful way", he stressed.
"I hope that by
making this information available to the public at large, we can help stop
people from inadvertently breaking the law, and make sure that cases are tried
on the evidence, not what people have found online", he said.
"This change also
brings more openness to Government's dealings with the media so that both sides
can be accountable to the public for what they do and say."
The advisories will be
published on the Attorney General's Office (AGO) section of the gov.uk website
and also through the AGO's twitter feed - @AGO--UK.
A leading British print
media The Independent on Wednesday December 4th 2013 recalled that last month a
man was given a suspended prison sentence for contempt after tweeting images
purporting to be of Jamie Bulger’s killer Jon Venables, who has been given a
new identity by the state.
The same British
newspaper also told the readers that this week Peaches Geldof, the daughter of
the Band Aid founder Bob Geldof, apologized for tweeting the names of two
mothers whose babies were abused by the Welsh rock singer Ian Watkins.
Incidentally, this is only the first time that the British
government has decided to warn members of the public on the far reaching
adverse consequences of committing contempt of court through their comments on
the social media. Hitherto, for the last 32 years newspapers and broadcasters
in Britain have received, on not-for- publication basis, notices warning them
of the potential pitfalls they face in reporting sensitive court cases. The Independent
reported that so far, ten of such notices have been issued in 2013, twice the
number released in an average year.
Already users of the social media have dubbed the new government's
approach in British society as a declaration of war and several negative
reactions have flooded the various social media sites.
But legal experts say that impartiality and objectivity are
essential elements of substantial justice even as they say whatever would lead
to the negation of these core values of good justice must be curbed in the
interest of social justice.
Nigeria’s erstwhile Chief Justice is one of those who think that
it is imperative to safeguard the principles of impartiality and objectivity in
order to ensure equitable justice delivery mechanism in any civilized society.
In 2007, he wrote a scholarly piece titled “towards
strengthening judicial integrity: the Nigerian experience,” whereby he
took time to expouse on those critical points of law.
On judicial impartiality and objectivity, the former Nigeria’s top
judge stated thus; “impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the
judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the
process by which decisions are made. Judges must perform their judicial duties
without favour, bias or prejudice and ensure that their conduct both in and out
of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and the litigants in the impartiality of the judicial system”,
Impartiality, in the considered opinion of Justice Musdapher,
means that the judge treats parties before him/her equally and providing
them with an equal opportunity to make their respective cases.
“Impartiality means that the judge has no personal interest in the
outcome of the suit with impartiality, comes objectivity. It means making
judicial decisions on the basis of considerations that are external to the
judge and may even be at conflict with the personal views of the judge”,
Justice Musdapher affirmed.
Chukwuma Machukwu-Ume, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Imo State
Attorney General and commissioner for justice, is of the opinion that
impartiality and objectivity are needed so as to guarantee substantial justice.
In a book he wrote on the person of the retired Chief Judge of
Bayelsa State (K.D. Ungbuku) the new Imo state Justice commissioner had alluded
to the above critical point of presence of impartiality and objectivity in
arriving at substantial justice when he wrote thus; “one goal Hon. Justice
Ungbuku pursued without reservation in his trials, orders rulings and
judgments, was substantial justice. Not justice based on technicality or
intellectuality, it was justice to whosoever it belonged, in the eyes of God
and the law”.
Whereas the British legal authorities are busy designing, devising
and implementing measures to enforce impartiality and objective in justice
delivery, Nigeria sinks deeper into the abyss of wanton abuses of the rights of
litigants not only in the social media but even from the operatives of the
Nigerian Police Force who by the constitutional provisions ought to play the
role of law enforcement. These abuses make an observer to wonder why Nigeria
has not changed positively even when the nation got most of our common laws and
the establishment of law enforcement agencies from the then British colonial
masters.
The operatives of the Nigerian Police Force are not the only
guilty party because even other law enforcement agents like those of the anti-graft
bodies and other para-military entities do engage in the public parade of
suspects and are in the habit of prejudicing these criminal matters that should
have been adjudicated by the courts of law.
The illegality of parading crime suspects have got to an abysmal
state so much so that even little children being breast- fed by female crime
suspects are regularly paraded by the operative of the Nigerian police force.
What all the above institutional abuses mean is that Nigeria still
has a very long way to go in order to restore sanity, impartiality and
objectivity in the justice delivery mechanism in practice in all parts of
Nigeria.
As Barack Obama stated that "change will not come if we wait
for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we have been waiting
for. We are the change that we seek," Nigerians generally must make rapid
advances in areas of promotion and protection of the fundamental human rights
of all citizens including those classified as being in conflict with the law.
While we watch the ongoing debate in the United Kingdom regarding
the new sets of operational guidelines, it is imperative that the Nigerian
legal authority begin comprehensive capacity building of law enforcement
officers to comply with global best practices and stop indulging in media
trials of suspects which in the long run prejudices the judicial decisions in
those matters.
The Nigerian media landscape is also in need of sweeping reforms
to enable reporters and essentially the line editors, respect the fundamental
human rights of all crime suspects who are considered innocent in the eyes of
the law unless and until a valid and competent judicial pronouncement is made
to prove otherwise.
Nigerian legal authorities should also introduce binding
guidelines to safeguard the principles of impartiality and objectivity in
justice delivery. It is a fact that the online community in Nigeria is filled
with hate messages and other adversarial comments that undermine equitable
dispensation of substantial justice.
* Emmanuel
Onwubiko; Head; HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA;
blogs @www.huriwa.blogspot.com; www.huriwa.org.
4/12/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment