Reps move to protect judges from online attacks

The House of Representatives on Thursday took preliminary steps to strengthen safeguards against intimidation, harassment and personal attacks on judicial officers.

The House urged Nigerians, media organisations and legal practitioners to distinguish between legitimate criticism of court judgments and attempts to undermine judicial independence.

The House also called on the National Judicial Council, the Nigerian Bar Association, the National Broadcasting Commission and other relevant institutions to strengthen existing mechanisms for addressing threats and harassment against judicial officers.

The resolutions followed the adoption of a motion titled, ‘Need to safeguard judicial independence and protect Judicial Officers from unwarranted intimidation, harassment and public vilification through Social Media and Broadcasting Networks’, moved by the member representing Shomolu Federal Constituency of Lagos State, Ademorin Kuye.

Speaking on the substance of the motion, Kuye said judicial independence remained a fundamental pillar of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the administration of justice, as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

He noted that judicial officers were constitutionally entrusted with interpreting laws, determining disputes and dispensing justice without fear, favour, affection or ill will.

He warned that sustained campaigns of intimidation and personal vilification could expose judges to undue pressure and erode public confidence in the judiciary.

The lawmaker expressed concern that some public commentators and legal practitioners had resorted to personal attacks against judges instead of addressing the legal principles, reasoning and findings contained in their judgments.

He said, “Social media platforms, online publications and broadcasting networks are increasingly being used to circulate unverified allegations, misleading interpretations and inflammatory commentaries about judicial proceedings and judgments, sometimes without adequate examination of the court records, evidence, legal arguments or reasoning underpinning such decisions.”

He stressed that sustained campaigns of intimidation, harassment and personal vilification against judicial officers, “may weaken public confidence in the judiciary, expose judges to undue pressure and undermine the constitutional principle of separation of powers.”

Kuye, however, acknowledged that Section 39 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the press, including the rights of citizens, journalists and legal practitioners to scrutinise and criticise judicial decisions responsibly.

Speaking against the motion, the Deputy Minority Whip, Mansur Soro, cautioned against any attempt to undermine the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.

Citing Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, he noted that every person was entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart ideas and information without interference.

Soro argued that existing institutions, including the courts and the police, already had mechanisms for addressing harassment, threats and other forms of misconduct.

He urged the House to mandate the joint Committees on Justice and Judiciary to investigate allegations of intimidation of judicial officers and establish the circumstances before considering further action.

Similarly, Aliyu Misau maintained that public confidence in the judiciary must be earned through transparent and credible judgments rather than secured through legislative interventions.

“Confidence is earned. There are judges who earn that confidence. Any judgment they pass, it is transparent, unaccepted by whoever, including those accused. They know it is a fair judgment,” he said.

Misau urged the House to investigate specific allegations of intimidation, identify those responsible and establish the circumstances surrounding such incidents before taking a holistic decision on the matter.

Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on Health Institutions, Patrick Umoh, said an increasingly disturbing trend had emerged in which Nigerians constituted a parallel court of public opinion to condemn judicial officers without adequately examining the cases before the courts.

Umoh, who identified himself as a lawyer, said arguments and claims circulated on social media were often at variance with the actual court processes.

He noted that litigants sometimes undermined their own cases through errors and concessions in their pleadings, only to blame judges when judgments went against them.

He warned that the situation could become more dangerous as the country approached the 2027 general elections, when electoral disputes were likely to increase and judicial officers could face heightened pressure.

“Your Excellency, Mr Speaker, this motion is timely, and it is the business of Parliament to guarantee that this kind of motion goes through,” Umoh said, adding that weakening the credibility of the judiciary amounted to undermining the constitutional foundation of the country.

Taking a contrary position, Anambra lawmaker, Peter Anakwe, warned that the motion, if not properly framed and implemented, could be interpreted as an attempt to silence the media and prevent citizens from holding public institutions accountable.

“There is no way we can cage the media. They have done enough by rescuing themselves within themselves. Let the judiciary rescue themselves,” he said.

Anakwe argued that judicial decisions, once made public, must remain open to scrutiny and criticism.

He insisted that the NJC should demonstrate greater commitment to disciplining erring judicial officers rather than seeking protection from public criticism.

He also cautioned that the National Assembly itself was regularly subjected to public criticism and should not support measures that could restrict Nigerians from expressing their opinions about public institutions.

On his part, Wole Oke described the motion as harmless and cautionary, arguing that protecting judicial officers against intimidation was different from shielding their decisions from legitimate public scrutiny.

Oke maintained that citizens retained the right to criticise judgments once they became public documents, while dissatisfied litigants also had the constitutional right to appeal against decisions.

“The distinction that my colleague, my leader, is talking about is about intimidation and harassment of judicial officers,” he said, urging lawmakers to support the motion without interpreting it as an attempt to restrict freedom of expression or parliamentary oversight.

Responding to the concerns raised, Kuye clarified that the motion was not seeking to create new offences or deny Nigerians their constitutional rights but rather to ensure the enforcement of existing laws against intimidation and harassment.

“This motion supports freedom of speech but makes a distinction between criticism and intimidation, which I am very sure it will never support. And this House will never support,” he said.

The lawmaker, who disclosed that he had practised law for about 42 years, warned that allowing the judiciary to be destroyed through sustained intimidation could erode public confidence in the justice system and encourage resort to jungle justice.

Following deliberations, the House urged the Federal Ministry of Justice and relevant institutions to promote public awareness of the constitutional and legal mechanisms available to litigants seeking redress against judicial decisions or alleged judicial misconduct.

It also urged the NJC to strengthen existing mechanisms for receiving, assessing and addressing credible complaints involving threats, harassment, intimidation and attempts to improperly influence judicial officers.

The lawmakers further called on the Body of Benchers and the NBA to reinforce professional standards among legal practitioners, particularly regarding public statements and commentaries on pending cases, judicial proceedings and judgments.

They urged lawyers to express disagreements through lawful and professionally responsible channels.

The House also urged the NBC to strengthen compliance with broadcasting standards by media organisations and presenters when discussing judicial proceedings.

Journalists, political actors and social media users were equally cautioned against personal attacks capable of intimidating judicial officers or undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

Additionally, relevant law enforcement agencies were urged to investigate credible reports of threats, harassment, incitement to violence and other unlawful attempts to intimidate judicial officers, with a view to ensuring appropriate legal action where offences were established.

Subsequently, Speaker of the House, Tajudeen Abbas, who presided over the plenary, mandated the joint Committees on Judiciary and Human Rights to engage the NJC, Body of Benchers, NBA, NBC, Federal Ministry of Justice and other relevant stakeholders on practical measures to protect judicial officers from unlawful intimidation and harassment while preserving constitutional freedoms and legitimate public scrutiny of judicial decisions.

The joint committees are expected to report back to the House within four weeks for further legislative action.