The ambiguity surrounding some recent court judgments has accentuated the call for clarity in judicial pronouncements.
No doubt, over the years, the judiciary has creditably acquitted itself as the final arbiter.
|
|
The judiciary has held its head high in the resolution of disputes, interpretation of laws, binding decisions, enforcement of rights, finality of judgments, checks and balances.
However, many stakeholders are worried that when court judgments are not concise and clear, they create room for multiple, jaundiced and conflicting interpretations.
|
|
|
|---|
In such situations, the parties torpedo the ambiguous judgments to suit their interests, making enforcement an uphill task.
In this context, court judgments on Senate vs Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Labour Party leadership tussle come to the fore.
In the latter, both Julius Abure and Nenadi Usman lay claim to victory after the Supreme Court judgment; in the former, Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan claims the court ordered her reinstatement, while the Senate insists there is no subsisting court order mandating the Senate to recall her.
Following a 4 July judgment, Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to resume legislative activities at the National Assembly on 22 July but was prevented by armed security agents at the complex entry points.
Irked by the uncertainty, a member of the House of Representatives, Clement Jimbo, (APC- Akwa Ibom), called for further judicial clarity in the ongoing legal impasse between the Senate and the suspended Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan.
He made the call in a motion on a personal explanation raised during the plenary recently.
Mr Jimbo called for greater clarity and consistency in the delivery of judicial judgments across Nigeria, alleging an increasing trend of court judgments being delivered with “ambiguities subject to different interpretations.”
He argued that court judgments should be simple, without ambiguity and not open to multiple interpretations, as it could sow confusion and weaken the rule of law.
Mr Jimbo warned that the judiciary’s credibility was at stake if judgments continued to lack the clarity necessary for enforcement, especially in politically sensitive cases.
“As members of parliament with the constitutional mandate to make laws for the good governance, prosperity and security of our nation, it is imperative we draw attention to these perceived inconsistencies from our judiciary.
“There is also an urgent need to recalibrate the template on which judgments of our courts are written, expressed and delivered, to clearly convey the intentions of our judges,” he said.
Legal practitioners are also weighing in on the puzzle of clarity in court verdicts.
Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said it had become imperative for the courts to avoid opacity in making pronouncements.
He said that such clarity would not create room for misinterpretations and obduracy
“The various courts should make orders explicit, clear, lucid, unambiguous and intelligible in such a way that no doubt is entertained as to the import and purport of the judgment.
“Many Nigerians do not ordinarily desire to obey court judgments; it becomes worse if a window of opportunity, however tiny, is opened for them through ambiguous judgments.
“They will quickly latch on it and continue their intransigence and contumacy,’’ he said.
Some legal luminaries, however, argue that such confusion emanates from deliberate angling of judgments by the parties.
Uchenna Njoku, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said that just like laws everywhere, Nigerian laws were not self-enforcing.
“We need to have good disposition to comply with the laws; to see to it that the letters of the laws are properly observed and kept, the same with court judgments
“The judgments of their lordships are clear; they are lucid.
“When you see different interpretations, more often than not, it is parties skewing interpretations of the judgment in a manner to favour a position they want to project.
“But the court judgments are clear; their lordships are trained in the art of delivering judgments that are lucid.
“As we read the law reports, we see clearly what their lordships have said.’’
He said that the solution lay in avoiding subjective interpretations of court judgments.
Mr Njoku argued that the parties know the issues that were submitted to the court.
“When you read the judgment, it is those issues that the court determined.
“Stay within the issues; often than not, you see people take the judgment and begin to foist it on circumstances that were not considered in that case.
“This is why, long ago, and in several decisions after decisions, the Supreme Court has warned: do not take what is decided in a case to foist on another where the facts and circumstances are different; do not give interpretation outside what is on the face of the document.”
According to him, the courts are lucid in their judgments.
He said it behoved the parties to be honest in approaching what the courts had said.
“For example, if I go to court today and the issue I have presented borders on trespass, if the court determines that issue was trespass, that is where I should stay within.
“The court may not have addressed the issue of ownership because I did not present the issue of ownership.
“Let the judgment say what it says on the face of it and let everybody go with it.
“Of course, if parties have issues as to interpretation of a judgment, they go back to the court and ask for any clarification, if any of such arises.
“But more often than not, on the things I have seen being interpreted here and there, I think if we want to be sincere to ourselves, we can see clearly what the court has said,’’ Mr Njoku said.
In the broader perspective, the issue of ambiguity in court judgments is not limited to Nigeria alone; it is almost a global concern.
Writing for the Bar&Bench, a publication of the Indian Judiciary, Ummar Jamal made submissions that aptly correlate with the Nigerian situation.
Mr Jamal said that complex legal language obscured the rationale behind judicial decisions, leading to a lack of transparency within the legal system.
“When judgments are written in clear, simple language, they become more transparent, allowing citizens to understand the basis for court rulings.
“This transparency fosters trust in the judiciary and holds judges accountable for their decisions, as they are required to articulate their reasoning in a manner accessible to all.
“Judgments serve not only as legal precedents, but also as guides for compliance and implementation.
“When judgments are written in easy language, it becomes easier for individuals, organisations and government agencies to understand their rights and obligations under the law.
“Clarity in legal documentation reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation or confusion, thereby promoting adherence to court rulings and facilitating the effective enforcement of laws.’’
READ ALSO: Supreme Court speaks on allegation linking justices Benin visit to Edo election case
He said, contrary to that, complex judgments often led to prolonged legal battles and appeals, as parties struggled to decipher the legal reasoning behind court decisions.
Mr Jamal said that by writing judgments in easy language, judges could minimise ambiguity and streamline the adjudicative process.
“Clear, comprehensible judgments reduce the likelihood of appeals based on misunderstandings or misinterpretations, thereby promoting efficiency within the judicial system and alleviating the burden on courts.
“The imperative to write judgments in easy language is not merely a matter of linguistic preference; it is a fundamental aspect of ensuring access to justice for all members of society.
“By prioritising clarity and simplicity in legal documentation, judges can democratise the law, foster transparency and accountability, promote legal literacy, and enhance the overall effectiveness of the judiciary,’’ Mr Jamal said.
By the aforesaid, it is the view of legal pundits and other stakeholders that lucid, straightforward verdicts will quicken closure in conflicts and also, where applicable, accelerate the decision of whether to appeal or not.
