LEGAL SCHOLARS WARN AGAINST RISING ‘TRIAL BY MEDIA’ TREND IN NIGERIA

By Chief Eli J. Gamaliel
(Partner, Lex Auxano and Partners)

Legal practitioners and scholars have raised renewed concerns over the growing phenomenon of “trial by media” in Nigeria, warning that the increasing reliance on public opinion and digital platforms to determine guilt or innocence poses serious risks to constitutional democracy and the administration of justice.

Often described as “trial by common sense,” the concept refers to the influence of traditional and digital media in shaping public judgment on legal disputes before courts of law have made any determination. Commentators note that the tension between popular perception and legal reasoning is not new. Philosophers such as Voltaire and architect Frank Lloyd Wright famously questioned the reliability of “common sense,” a debate that now finds modern expression in media-driven justice narratives.

While newspapers and television initially popularized the practice in the late 20th century, the rise of social media platforms—particularly X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram—has dramatically expanded its reach. Through likes, comments, reposts, and shares, opinions are amplified instantly, often transforming allegations into perceived verdicts within hours.

Courts Under Pressure

Nigeria’s judicial system, though originally established during the colonial era, now derives its authority from the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Section 6 vests judicial powers exclusively in the courts, reflecting the long-standing legal principle ibi jus ibi remedium—where there is a right, there must be a remedy.

However, persistent delays, procedural bottlenecks, and perceptions of elitism within the justice system have weakened public confidence. Analysts say these shortcomings have driven many citizens to seek redress through media platforms, which are viewed as faster and more accessible avenues for justice and public sympathy.

Radio and television stations now routinely host human-rights and dispute-resolution programmes, presenting themselves as informal accountability mechanisms. Although “trial by media” is not expressly defined in Nigerian law, proponents often rely on Section 39 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and of the press.

Legal experts caution, however, that these freedoms are not absolute. They must be balanced against other constitutional guarantees, including fair hearing and the presumption of innocence.

Judicial Warnings and Case Law

Nigerian courts have repeatedly warned against media interference in judicial matters. In A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007), the Supreme Court held that public opinion, no matter how popular, cannot override constitutional safeguards or judicial processes.

Earlier, in Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State (1986), the apex court emphasized that the rule of law must prevail over executive or popular actions.

The judiciary maintains that formal adjudication remains superior to media trials for several reasons. Section 36(5) of the Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence, a principle courts have consistently upheld. In State v. Aibangbee (1988), the Court of Appeal warned that any publication prejudging an accused person undermines fair trial—an outcome commonly associated with media trials.

Similarly, the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) demands impartiality and freedom from undue influence. In Garba v. FCSC (1988), the Supreme Court described fair hearing as “the soul of justice,” noting that any breach renders proceedings null.

Critics argue that media trials expose individuals to ridicule and irreversible reputational damage, even when courts later clear them of wrongdoing. Unlike judicial decisions, which are binding and enforceable, outcomes reached through media intervention lack legal finality unless formally adopted within recognized legal frameworks.

Recent Developments

Recent appellate decisions have reinforced judicial unease with media sensationalism. In Odili v. F.R.N (2021), the Court of Appeal condemned media narratives that pre-empt judicial findings, warning that such conduct threatens the integrity of the justice system.

Courts have also upheld defamation claims arising from reckless publications, underscoring the need for ethical journalism.

Calls for Reform

Observers acknowledge that trial by media has become a modern-day refuge for frustrated citizens, offering speed, visibility, and a sense of justice in the face of institutional delays. It has also played a role in exposing social injustices and shaping public consciousness.

Nevertheless, legal analysts stress that its shortcomings—particularly its disregard for due process and enforceability—remain profound. They argue that while courts may be losing the popularity contest to media platforms, they remain the ultimate arbiters of rights and obligations.

Experts are now urging the Executive and Legislative arms of government to collaborate with the Judiciary on procedural reforms and the establishment of specialized courts aimed at expanding access to justice. Such measures, they say, would enhance efficiency, restore public confidence, and reduce the growing resort to media trials.

Ultimately, commentators conclude, justice must not only be swift but deliberate and impartial. As the wheel of justice grinds on, it must do so visibly and with integrity, ensuring equal rights, timely remedies, and meaningful access to justice within Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.