A matter is said to be sub judice when a case is before a court or judge for determination. In other words, the matter is pending in a court, awaiting judgment.

The Honourable Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed has rightly confirmed that there may be no known law that bars anyone, including parties to a suit or third parties from making public statements on cases pending in Nigerian courts.

Therefore, the culture of press freedom in Nigeria from time immemorial allows citizens either as parties or journalists to freely make comments or write stories respectively on pending cases unless there are express orders of court, restricting such comments  or stories based either on the application to court by any of the parties or by the judge suo moto ( on his own will). Such orders  are popularly known as ‘gag orders’.

It is usual to see and hear lawyers, especially Senior Advocates of Nigeria addressing the press immediately after court sessions, where they make comments on cases where they had immediately appeared as counsel.

The misuse of the principle of sub judice by journalists
The misapplication of the principle of sub judice has been an excuse by lazy journalists who do not have the commitment to conduct research or investigation and write stories on particular matters that are in court. They simply cite such matters as being  sub judice , just because they are pending in court. That lame excuse is also, most times, adopted  by parties to a suit.

It should be noted that the law courts are where the real news reside. In fact, the socioeconomic development of a country can be largely determined in the courts. That accounts for the social engineering function of law. Only superficial media organisations would avoid the courts as a place to authentic gather news.

The Statement of the CJN
It became very worrisome when a statement was some time in January, 2018 credited to His Lordship, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), the Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen wherein he was quoted  that commentators on live, pending cases could go to jail. With greatest respect to the most reverred CJN, if he did authorise that statement, then, that position cannot be correct as it is against our known and established legal culture in Nigeria.

Of course, yes! Anyone who disobeys an order of a judge restricting public comments on a live case could most certainly go to jail on the
grounds of contempt of court.

If the statement credited to the CJN is to be taken seriously then Lai Mohammed should be prepared to face contempt proceedings and possibly be sent to jail for recently making controversial public statements on live criminal cases where the government that he legally represents is a party that is prosecuting Nigerians that are presumed to be innocent.

Would Lai Mohammed now go to jail?
Lai Mohammed recently held a press conference and  published names of looters with attached amounts allegedly stolen by the persons he listed in spite of the fact that these said persons are currently facing trials in Nigerian courts on those same allegations. Nothing could be more flagrant and dismissive of the CJN’s warnings regarding making comments on live cases and risking going to jail.

Yet, Lai Mohammed is in order for there is no known order that bars him from publishing such a statement on looters. It is both an excercise of his constitutional duties under Section 24 and 148 and, his constitutional right under Section 39 , all contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999  (as altered )

The most highly respected CJN should therefore  exercise his enormous powers by making practice directions regarding public commentary on pending or live cases in order to add Nigeria to the number of few juridictions in the world which regulate comments on on-going cases by parties and third parties.

Let the Public Commentary Continue Where there is no Gag Order
Come to think of it? Nigeria, doesn’t need a regime of gag orders. Let everything, including pending cases be talked and written about freely. In a country where corruption  largely operates as the public order why would for example, parties to cases of corruption prevent public statements to be made simply because they are involved in a pending case. That is an undemocratic culture. Let there be constact public discourses by everyone, even  by parties to a suit provided they do nother dispar age the court. Why should a trained judge be swayed in his judgments by  statements made in public regarding a case pending before him?

The crux of this writing is the angst flowing from a Nigerian press that has become incipient of listlessness, striving to be both politically and commercially correct at the expense of a journalistic duty contained in Section 22 of the Constitution of Nigeria which imposes the duty to uphold truth at all times and expose public and,nprivate corruption.

Journalists and media houses in Nigeria are now largely in short of courageous men and women who are committed to bold and factual journalism that transforms a people and country. Many of them are driven by bare necessities hence, they would clutch feverishly on the excuse that a matter is sub judice and therefore turn themselves to perpetual reporters of second hand news which has become the norm in this age of the Internet.

Journalist our only hope for now
The press, media houses have the greatest responsibility of sustaining democracy and hope for a better life in Nigerian. Owners and practitioners in the media must realise that it is self-preservatory for individuals and as a nation to boldly report news dispassionately.

The value of the looking glass concept which would make a people and a country correct itself and make improvements can only be served by a courageous press.

Frank Tietie
Lawyer and Executive Director of Citizens Advocacy for Social & Economic Rights ( CASER ), writes from Abuja.