By Balogun Sofiyullahi
According to Socrates, ” four things belong to a judge , to hear
courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide
impartially”. Blackstone was credited to be the first being, to use
“living oracles” to qualify the Judges.
A judge as a living Oracle of the law said Professor Azinge, is
the central figure in the judicial system and the administration of
justice. Starting with his appointment, he is deemed to possess
numerous attributes far beyond that of mere mortals. It is
therefore understandable why he should be addressed as “My lord.”
He is the Chief Priest of the temple of justice and all who worship
in that temple not only defer to him but perceives him as a symbol
of justice. His words are law and commands absolute obedience. He
holds the power of life and death and dispenses justice without
fear or favour. Like Caesar’s wife, he is not only expected to be
above board but to a large extent detached from the society in
which he lives. He is expected to retain the confidence of the
public in the administration of justice by his honesty,
impartiality and devotion to the cause of justice. The judge at all
times is expected to be an embodiment of courage, an impartial
arbiter and an acutely independent-minded.
{ See “The living Oracles of the Law and the Cardinal fallacy of
human divination”; Sixth Justice Idigbe Memorial Lectures}
However, there is no character on earth more sublime than that
of a learned and upright judge said Prof. Agom. He continues by
saying that in doing his job, the judge, although human and subject
to hierarchy of needs, is expected to rise above sentiment and
common passion. He is to decide according to the norms of the
society, yet his interraction with the same society wherein he
dwells must be measured.
The Judex is indeed subject to hierarchy of needs and the
humanity in him may compel his prejudices in his duty, but in the
words of William Scot in Evans v. Evans(1790)1 Hagg Con.Rep 36 he
said:
“The humanity of the Court has been loudly and repeatedly
invoked. Humanity is the second virtue of Courts, but undoubtedly
the first is justice.”
He is a sublime being on earth that ‘justice’ and what is ‘just’
is determined by him alone & not by the parties before him. The
Supreme Court in OKPALA V. OKPU (2003) SCNJ 310 said: “Justice is
from the point of view of the Court, and not necessarily from the
point of view of the parties. After all the loosing party will
always say that Injustice has been done to him.” Per Niki Tobi
JSC
Prof. Agom continues in his elegant postulation that the judex
is a priest at the shrine of justice and renders to everyone his
due. The pronouncements of a judge do not only resolve immediate
conflicts but chart future relationship in rem. { See Ogebe & The
Law : The Courage of a Judge}
Without reservation, the independence of the judiciary in any
democratic dispensation is to nib the bud on the head, not only
sacrosanct but a case of constitutional importance with force and
undisputed acceptability. Just as had been rendited in replete of
authorities about its independence_ it is to me not unconnected to
the fact that public confidence needs to be sustained & if not
maintained, in the least.
Justice Karibi Whyte posited that irrespective of how the judge
reasons and gives a decision that : ” There should be public
confidence in him always, whether in his action he decided to be
guided by traditional legal values and remain a mere judicial
craftsmanship, or would prefer to be an innovator, that is ,to
behave as an activist in the circumstance”.
{ See All Nigerian Judges Conference of 1982 : “Problems in the
Interpretation and application of the Constitution”}
This, said Karibi Whyte as we know, is not just a new
phenomenon. Edward Coke had fearlessly won this point over 300
years ago. Though it is now trite, I crave the indulgence to repeat
the incident leading to it as I intend to state a warning which has
been given by the Chief Justice of Nigeria in regards to the
independence of the judiciary in this country to which, it would
appear, attention has not been paid by the authorities concerned.
When Coke maintained that all cases ought to be determined in a
court of justice, King James retorted :
“I always thought and I have often heard the boast that your
English law is founded upon reason. If that be so, why have not I
and others reason as well as you Judges ?”
Coke spoke for all ages when he replied :
“True it is, please your Majesty, that God has endowed your
Majesty with excellent science as well as great gifts of nature;
but your Majesty will allow me to say so, with all reverence, that
you are not learned in the laws of this realm of England…which is
an art which requires long study and experience before that a man
can attain to the cognizance of it. The law is the golden met-wand
and measure to try the causes of your Majesty’s subjects and it is
protected in safety and peace”.
The King, in rage, exclaimed, ” Then I am to be under the law
which it is treason to affirm.” Coke referred His Majesty to
Bracton who had written, ” The King is tno man but under God and
the law.”. King James only came to appreciate the point made by
Coke after he had tried his hand as a judge. He was more than
perplexed by the difficulties involved in making judicial decisions
after hearing both sides in the great and true tradition of audi
alteram partem (hear both sides). The King said, no more in rage
but in utter despair, “I could get on very well hearing one side
only, but when both sides…,upon my word I know not which is
right.”
By virtue of the scenario produced above between King James &
Lord Coke, one tends not to be in a consternation that the onerous
work of a judge & by virtue of his long-stand training depicts the
fact that the way he reasons,talks,relates and reacts should be
quite & respectfully distinct from that of an ordinary man even, if
learned.
However, let me state here forthwith, that public confidence
does not mean public opinion or sentiment about a matter before
him. ‘No’. Because, a decision given in tandem with public
sentiment from a general world view is not (always) sound in law &
principles, for want of better expression. I think on this, I’m
fortified by the dictum of Justice Oguntade JSC(dissented) in the
celebrated case of Inakoju v. Adeleke(2007)4 NWLR (pt 125)427 and
the case of FRN v. Bankole(2012) All FWLR (pt. 629)1150 HC.
The Judex, as a distinct and distinguished personality_ all his
attitudinal dispositions are subject to public scrutiny & if he
acts unbecoming of the office he holds, he is liable to public
odium & opprobrium.
Surprisingly, a judex by virtue of a matter before him, is at
times “ON TRIAL”. The trial within this context per se, is whether
by the circumstances, parties(especially political figure) before
him or the nature of the matter he is to adjudicate_ he can do
substantial justice in the case. All his moves & actions are being
studied with keen interest.
An example of a celebrated case on this point wherein a judex of
High Court of Kwara State (Justice Adesiyun) of blessed memory was
on “a public trial” is the case of Patrick Njovens v. State(1973)5
SC 12.
But to the surprise of the general public, the judex (Justice
Adesiyun) rose above board without looking at his shoulders by
convicting the public figure accused based on the justice of the
case and his decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
{ See “Democratic Constitution making in Nigeria : The Myths &
Realities, Fallacies & Illusions”. 4th Justice Adesiyun Biennial
Memorial Lectures}
Similarly, in an ideal social settings the appointment of a
judex is seen to be a matter of national significance that makes
the appointors go on a vital voyage of discovery in order to select
the best most noble,intelligible,upright,sane, dauntless and sound
person to fit in the position because of the corresponding duties
and obligations he is to undertake upon assumption of the sacred
office and a fortiori, being a sentinel in the temple of
justice.
Besides all these qualities, a great bulk of works still lies on
him because , the judex, by the settled maxim of “jura novit curia”
he is presumed to know all the laws if and only if, he is an
omnivorous researcher . But one must strictly put to the front line
of this presumption, the poignant & elegant observation of Abbot CJ
over 190years ago in the case of MONTRIOU VS JEFFREYS(1825)2 C & P
113, where he said :
“No attorney is bound to know all the Law;God forbids that it
should be imagined that an attorney or a counsel or even a judge is
bound to know all the Law”
Finally, a judex by his professional calling is to expect
matters which are at best, novel (I.e in law,facts & jurisprudence)
and put on the garment of courage and keen absorbing interest in
giving same a proper focus within the precinct of established
principles or to see how best he can lay down principles which
would at all time stand the test of time & futurity.
{See the dauntless decision of the England Court of Appeal in
Gourient v. Union of Post Office Workers(1977) 1 QB 729 @ 761-762;
(1977) 1 All ER; Lord Denning MR at page 714.
Conclusively, the judex being a living Oracle of the Law who is
to decide or arbitrate between two or more warring parties, holds
with him a scale and this is the main reason why he should at all
points in time see that the scale is evenly handed because, the
position occupied by a judex is at best described to be very
similar to that of the Omnipotent creator and as such, if not
mistaken, a representator of God on earth.
Balogun Sofiyullahi is a Final Year Law Student of Faculty of
Law,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. 07032676039 or
balogunsofiyullahi@gmail.com
By Balogun Sofiyullahi
According to Socrates, ” four things belong to a judge , to hear
courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide
impartially”. Blackstone was credited to be the first being, to use
“living oracles” to qualify the Judges.
A judge as a living Oracle of the law said Professor Azinge, is
the central figure in the judicial system and the administration of
justice. Starting with his appointment, he is deemed to possess
numerous attributes far beyond that of mere mortals. It is
therefore understandable why he should be addressed as “My lord.”
He is the Chief Priest of the temple of justice and all who worship
in that temple not only defer to him but perceives him as a symbol
of justice. His words are law and commands absolute obedience. He
holds the power of life and death and dispenses justice without
fear or favour. Like Caesar’s wife, he is not only expected to be
above board but to a large extent detached from the society in
which he lives. He is expected to retain the confidence of the
public in the administration of justice by his honesty,
impartiality and devotion to the cause of justice. The judge at all
times is expected to be an embodiment of courage, an impartial
arbiter and an acutely independent-minded.
{ See “The living Oracles of the Law and the Cardinal fallacy of
human divination”; Sixth Justice Idigbe Memorial Lectures}
However, there is no character on earth more sublime than that
of a learned and upright judge said Prof. Agom. He continues by
saying that in doing his job, the judge, although human and subject
to hierarchy of needs, is expected to rise above sentiment and
common passion. He is to decide according to the norms of the
society, yet his interraction with the same society wherein he
dwells must be measured.
The Judex is indeed subject to hierarchy of needs and the
humanity in him may compel his prejudices in his duty, but in the
words of William Scot in Evans v. Evans(1790)1 Hagg Con.Rep 36 he
said:
“The humanity of the Court has been loudly and repeatedly
invoked. Humanity is the second virtue of Courts, but undoubtedly
the first is justice.”
He is a sublime being on earth that ‘justice’ and what is ‘just’
is determined by him alone & not by the parties before him. The
Supreme Court in OKPALA V. OKPU (2003) SCNJ 310 said: “Justice is
from the point of view of the Court, and not necessarily from the
point of view of the parties. After all the loosing party will
always say that Injustice has been done to him.” Per Niki Tobi
JSC
Prof. Agom continues in his elegant postulation that the judex
is a priest at the shrine of justice and renders to everyone his
due. The pronouncements of a judge do not only resolve immediate
conflicts but chart future relationship in rem. { See Ogebe & The
Law : The Courage of a Judge}
Without reservation, the independence of the judiciary in any
democratic dispensation is to nib the bud on the head, not only
sacrosanct but a case of constitutional importance with force and
undisputed acceptability. Just as had been rendited in replete of
authorities about its independence_ it is to me not unconnected to
the fact that public confidence needs to be sustained & if not
maintained, in the least.
Justice Karibi Whyte posited that irrespective of how the judge
reasons and gives a decision that : ” There should be public
confidence in him always, whether in his action he decided to be
guided by traditional legal values and remain a mere judicial
craftsmanship, or would prefer to be an innovator, that is ,to
behave as an activist in the circumstance”.
{ See All Nigerian Judges Conference of 1982 : “Problems in the
Interpretation and application of the Constitution”}
This, said Karibi Whyte as we know, is not just a new
phenomenon. Edward Coke had fearlessly won this point over 300
years ago. Though it is now trite, I crave the indulgence to repeat
the incident leading to it as I intend to state a warning which has
been given by the Chief Justice of Nigeria in regards to the
independence of the judiciary in this country to which, it would
appear, attention has not been paid by the authorities concerned.
When Coke maintained that all cases ought to be determined in a
court of justice, King James retorted :
“I always thought and I have often heard the boast that your
English law is founded upon reason. If that be so, why have not I
and others reason as well as you Judges ?”
Coke spoke for all ages when he replied :
“True it is, please your Majesty, that God has endowed your
Majesty with excellent science as well as great gifts of nature;
but your Majesty will allow me to say so, with all reverence, that
you are not learned in the laws of this realm of England…which is
an art which requires long study and experience before that a man
can attain to the cognizance of it. The law is the golden met-wand
and measure to try the causes of your Majesty’s subjects and it is
protected in safety and peace”.
The King, in rage, exclaimed, ” Then I am to be under the law
which it is treason to affirm.” Coke referred His Majesty to
Bracton who had written, ” The King is tno man but under God and
the law.”. King James only came to appreciate the point made by
Coke after he had tried his hand as a judge. He was more than
perplexed by the difficulties involved in making judicial decisions
after hearing both sides in the great and true tradition of audi
alteram partem (hear both sides). The King said, no more in rage
but in utter despair, “I could get on very well hearing one side
only, but when both sides…,upon my word I know not which is
right.”
By virtue of the scenario produced above between King James &
Lord Coke, one tends not to be in a consternation that the onerous
work of a judge & by virtue of his long-stand training depicts the
fact that the way he reasons,talks,relates and reacts should be
quite & respectfully distinct from that of an ordinary man even, if
learned.
However, let me state here forthwith, that public confidence
does not mean public opinion or sentiment about a matter before
him. ‘No’. Because, a decision given in tandem with public
sentiment from a general world view is not (always) sound in law &
principles, for want of better expression. I think on this, I’m
fortified by the dictum of Justice Oguntade JSC(dissented) in the
celebrated case of Inakoju v. Adeleke(2007)4 NWLR (pt 125)427 and
the case of FRN v. Bankole(2012) All FWLR (pt. 629)1150 HC.
The Judex, as a distinct and distinguished personality_ all his
attitudinal dispositions are subject to public scrutiny & if he
acts unbecoming of the office he holds, he is liable to public
odium & opprobrium.
Surprisingly, a judex by virtue of a matter before him, is at
times “ON TRIAL”. The trial within this context per se, is whether
by the circumstances, parties(especially political figure) before
him or the nature of the matter he is to adjudicate_ he can do
substantial justice in the case. All his moves & actions are being
studied with keen interest.
An example of a celebrated case on this point wherein a judex of
High Court of Kwara State (Justice Adesiyun) of blessed memory was
on “a public trial” is the case of Patrick Njovens v. State(1973)5
SC 12.
But to the surprise of the general public, the judex (Justice
Adesiyun) rose above board without looking at his shoulders by
convicting the public figure accused based on the justice of the
case and his decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
{ See “Democratic Constitution making in Nigeria : The Myths &
Realities, Fallacies & Illusions”. 4th Justice Adesiyun Biennial
Memorial Lectures}
Similarly, in an ideal social settings the appointment of a
judex is seen to be a matter of national significance that makes
the appointors go on a vital voyage of discovery in order to select
the best most noble,intelligible,upright,sane, dauntless and sound
person to fit in the position because of the corresponding duties
and obligations he is to undertake upon assumption of the sacred
office and a fortiori, being a sentinel in the temple of
justice.
Besides all these qualities, a great bulk of works still lies on
him because , the judex, by the settled maxim of “jura novit curia”
he is presumed to know all the laws if and only if, he is an
omnivorous researcher . But one must strictly put to the front line
of this presumption, the poignant & elegant observation of Abbot CJ
over 190years ago in the case of MONTRIOU VS JEFFREYS(1825)2 C & P
113, where he said :
“No attorney is bound to know all the Law;God forbids that it
should be imagined that an attorney or a counsel or even a judge is
bound to know all the Law”
Finally, a judex by his professional calling is to expect
matters which are at best, novel (I.e in law,facts & jurisprudence)
and put on the garment of courage and keen absorbing interest in
giving same a proper focus within the precinct of established
principles or to see how best he can lay down principles which
would at all time stand the test of time & futurity.
{See the dauntless decision of the England Court of Appeal in
Gourient v. Union of Post Office Workers(1977) 1 QB 729 @ 761-762;
(1977) 1 All ER; Lord Denning MR at page 714.
Conclusively, the judex being a living Oracle of the Law who is
to decide or arbitrate between two or more warring parties, holds
with him a scale and this is the main reason why he should at all
points in time see that the scale is evenly handed because, the
position occupied by a judex is at best described to be very
similar to that of the Omnipotent creator and as such, if not
mistaken, a representator of God on earth.
Balogun Sofiyullahi is a Final Year Law Student of Faculty of
Law,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. 07032676039 or
balogunsofiyullahi@gmail.com