Security concerns must be addressed with precision, not used as a blanket justification for opacity. Legal principles must be upheld not only in form but in practice. And above all, transparency must remain central to the administration of justice. Only through such a balanced approach can public confidence be strengthened and the integrity of the justice system preserved
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
Nigeria’s justice system stands at a defining crossroads, one that calls for careful reflection not only on the events within our courtrooms but also on how those proceedings are presented to the public. At the heart of this moment lies a delicate balance between law, accountability, and the restoration of public trust. When that balance is unsettled, confidence in the entire system begins to erode.
In recent weeks, two high-profile proceedings have drawn national attention under circumstances that invite legitimate concern. The corruption trial of Nasir El-Rufai and the court-martial of 36 military officers accused of plotting a coup against Bola Tinubu have both been marked by heavy security and restricted public access.
Though different in substance, their handling reflects a similar institutional instinct towards controlling information.
When El-Rufai was arraigned before the Federal High Court in Kaduna, the security presence was notably intense. Access to the court premises was tightly controlled, and journalists—whose role is to inform the public—were kept at a distance. The charges against him, which include allegations of corruption, money laundering, and abuse of office involving significant sums in both naira and foreign currency, are undeniably matters of public interest. Yet, despite this, the proceedings remained largely shielded from view. Even after bail was granted under stringent conditions, a gag order further limited what could be communicated outside the courtroom. This raises a fundamental issue of how the public can meaningfully follow a case it cannot adequately see or hear.
READ ALSO:
Relearning the hard lessons of security and democracy
A similar pattern unfolded in Abuja during the General Court Martial convened to try 36 military officers over an alleged coup plot. Defence correspondents were initially invited to attend, suggesting a measure of openness. However, they were subsequently asked to leave shortly before proceedings commenced. Such a sequence does little to reinforce confidence in the transparency of the process and instead introduces uncertainty regarding the rationale behind the exclusion.
In both instances, the justification offered has been national security. This is not a concern to be dismissed lightly; there are indeed circumstances where limited restrictions are both necessary and lawful. However, the governing legal standard is clear, where the law provides that court proceedings shall be held in public except under narrowly defined conditions. Where exceptions are invoked, the burden rests on the authorities to clearly and convincingly justify them.
So far, that justification has not been sufficiently articulated in the public domain. In the absence of clarity, suspicion naturally fills the gap. Transparency is not merely a procedural preference; it is a safeguard of legitimacy. When justice is not visible, its credibility is weakened, regardless of the integrity of the process itself.
At the same time, another case arising from the 29 March killings in Angwan Rukuba, Jos, highlights a different but equally significant challenge, which is the complexity of competing narratives in the search for truth. Four men have been arraigned on terrorism charges, and the judicial process must be allowed to take its course. The courts remain the proper forum for determining guilt or innocence.
What complicates public understanding, however, is the emergence of an alternative account from traders at Cabbage Market in Jos, who maintain that the accused were with them at the time of the attack and even assisted others to safety. These claims entered the public space through reporting by Trust TV, whose on-the-ground coverage brought forward voices that might otherwise have gone unheard.
This intervention underscores the essential role of journalism in capturing complexity rather than suppressing it. By presenting multiple perspectives, the media helps ensure that public discourse is not shaped by a single, uncontested narrative. However, this role also carries weighty responsibilities. Claims—whether from official sources or eyewitnesses—must be rigorously examined and verified.
There is a constant temptation, particularly in fast-moving situations, to prioritise speed over accuracy. That temptation must be resisted. In matters of justice, premature conclusions can mislead the public and, in some cases, prejudice ongoing proceedings. Careful, measured reporting is not a limitation; it is a necessity.
While Court reporting, in particular, demands discipline, the proceedings must also be conveyed faithfully, without embellishment or distortion. The courtroom is not a stage for speculation but a forum where facts are methodically tested. Precision in language and restraint in interpretation are essential to maintaining both journalistic integrity and respect for the legal process.
There is also a broader social dimension to consider. In states like Plateau, where tensions can be easily inflamed, careless or simplistic reporting can have real consequences. Narratives framed along ethnic or religious lines, without sufficient nuance, risk deepening divisions and escalating conflict. Responsible journalism requires sensitivity to these dynamics.
At the same time, the duty to ask difficult questions must not be abandoned. Accountability is not antagonistic to institutions; it is foundational to their strength. A justice system that can withstand scrutiny is one that commands respect.
Equally important is the principle of the presumption of innocence. Those on trial are entitled to it, and public discourse must reflect that standard consistently. To do otherwise is to undermine a cornerstone of fair trial rights.
Ultimately, the issues raised by these cases extend beyond their immediate facts. They point to a broader question about the character of Nigeria’s justice system as to whether it can remain both secure and transparent, whether it can protect sensitive information where necessary while still upholding the public’s right to observe and understand judicial proceedings.
Justice is not only about outcomes; it is also about perception. It must be seen to be done. That visibility is essential to public trust, and it depends significantly on a media that is present, responsible, and free to perform its role.
As Nigeria navigates this moment, the path forward requires balance and clarity. Security concerns must be addressed with precision, not used as a blanket justification for opacity. Legal principles must be upheld not only in form but in practice. And above all, transparency must remain central to the administration of justice.
Only through such a balanced approach can public confidence be strengthened and the integrity of the justice system preserved.
