INTRODUCTION
The judiciary in every democratic society serves as the hope of the common man. It is the pillar of justice, meticulously interpreting and applying the law to ensure that individuals and institutions are accountable for their actions. Through its decisions, the judiciary provides clarity on the meaning and scope of the law, setting important precedents that will serve as a guide in the determination of future cases. The court plays this role as prescribed in Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 2011, hereinafter referred to as the 1999 constitution.
The entire judicial process, ranging from the filing of the suit to the court’s decision, is guided by inviolable standards. For instance, Section 174 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the 1999 constitution gives the Attorney-General of the Federation, who is the chief law officer of the Federation, the authority to institute and undertake, or take over and continue, or to discontinue at any stage before judgment is given, a criminal proceeding undertaken by him or any other authority or person.
However, this power conferred upon him by the 1999 constitution is still restricted from any form of arbitrary influence. In the exercise of these powers, he shall be guided by the provision of subsection (3) of the same section that confers the power thereof, which provides thus: “in exercising his powers under this section, the Attorney-General of the Federation shall have regard to the public’s interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process”.
Hence, the focus of this essay is to examine the factors that shape the court’s decisions, resulting in the discrepancy between judicial decisions and the public’s expectations.
1. CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION
1.1. Public’s expectation: This refers to the collective anticipations or beliefs held by the public regarding the outcome of a particular legal matter before a court of law. Emotional responses, personal experience, moral intuitions, and societal norms shape these expectations rather than a deep understanding of legal principles and procedures.
1.2. Judicial outcome: This refers to the final decision or verdict of a case determined by a competent court of law. It is the product of the interplay of relevant laws, legal precedents, and procedural rules applied to the facts of the case that result in such a decision.
1.3. Rule-guided: In judicial decision-making, this refers to the assertion that judicial outcomes are determined through the application of established laws, legal rules, precedents, and procedures. This proposition emphasizes that judges are bound by a set of predefined, but constantly developing, legal standards and guidelines which they must follow in order to reach a decision. These predetermined guides help the judges to maintain consistency and predictability, minimizing the influence of bias and emotional responses.
2. FACTORS INFLUENCING COURT’S DECICIONS.
Interpreting and applying the law is unarguably demanding, yet the court is bound by law to hold its proceedings in public, save in exceptional cases such as those dealing with minors. See Simon Edibo v. The State. This has attracted unwarranted criticism from the public. Justice is not static but dynamic; hence, variations in ideas, beliefs, and perceptions of justice would be inevitable from people of different backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, and ages.
It is crucial to note that knowing the rules governing a particular sport game [soccer], which one desires a certain team to win, is as important as knowing the basic rules governing court processes. The factors that influence a court’s decision could include, but are not limited to, the following:
the credibility of the parties involved, evidence presented by the parties, testimony of the parties (consistency, coherence, and persuasiveness), parties’ prior actions or behaviors relevant to the case, parties’ financial resources (or lack thereof) to pursue the case, the experience and expertise of the counsels, quality of legal representation, the counsel’s ability to communicate effectively with the judge/jury, the counsel’s credibility and reputation, the counsel’s arguments and persuasiveness, the nature and severity of the dispute, the timing of the dispute (statute of limitation), the impact of external factors such as media attention, the judge’s questions and engagement with the counsels/parties.
Others are, legal precedents and applicable laws, judicial discretion, societal attitudes, procedural technicalities such as the admissibility or otherwise of evidence, motions, witnesses’ relationship to the parties involved, documentary evidence, legal/judicial reasoning, the rules of statutory interpretation, the adjudicatory system, and the hierarchy of courts, etcetera. All the factors listed above strongly influence every court case, although their relative importance varies.
The dichotomy between the court’s decisions and the public’s expectations is stark. While laypersons often view legal matters through the lens of intuition and emotional responses, judges and legal practitioners dissect the facts, applying logical analysis and legal frameworks to reach a conclusion. For example, Mr. A will not be sentenced to death if he causes the death of Mr. B while he was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. See Section 222 (1) of the Penal Code.
This may, prima facie, seem an act of injustice to a layperson, especially to the immediate relatives of the victim. One may wrongfully assume ‘intent’ based on the severity of the consequence. In contrast, judges will examine the circumstances surrounding the case, considering factors such as ‘motive,’ ‘intention,’ and ‘causation,’ among other things, to determine the appropriate legal outcome. The factors that influence a court’s decision, as already discussed above, are not exhaustive. Amongst those, only four major factors will be examined in detail.
2.1. Legal/Judicial Reasoning
By definition, legal reasoning refers to the art of thinking persuasively in a coordinated orderly and sensible manner in relation to the law, it involves to the process or style of analyzing problems, creating arguments, challenging assumptions and drawing conclusions within the legal domain.
It also entails utilizing case-based reasoning to interpret rules, and concepts, legal reasoning is a method of thoughts and argument adopted by lawyers and judges when applying legal rules to some specific facts, there are three major types of legal reasoning, these are:
2.1.1. Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a “bottom-up” process of making generalized assumptions based on specific premises, experience or observations, this method of reasoning applies thus:
- Everybody at the party was wearing blue shirts.
- Adam was at the party.
- Therefore, Adam was wearing a blue shirt.
This conclusion is drawn with no firsthand experience with Adam, he is only said to have wore a blue shirt because he was at the party.
2.1.2. Deductive Reasoning: this is a reasoning method in which there is a major general statement [premise] and a minor statement [premise] which is more related to the facts of the matter in question (brought before the judge) and a conclusion from the two statements, example is given below:
- All men have short hair
- Adam is a man
- Therefore, Adam has short hair.
Note that the second statement must flow from the first statement, if there is a deviation, there will be an erroneous conclusion, this method of reasoning could be applied in a practical case as follows:
- Whoever takes the property of another with the intention to permanently deny him/her of it, is guilty of stealing.
- Adam took Glenn’s phone with the intention to permanently deny him of it.
- Therefore, Adam is guilty of stealing.
Judges are always careful when adopting this method of reasoning because if the major statement is faulty, the conclusion will also be faulty.
2.1.3. Analogical Reasoning: it was opined by lord Diplock that in reasoning, one must identify what he is looking for and look for similar cases, courts uses this to differentiate between or conclude that cases are similar, in spite of any reasoning method adopted by a lawyer, a judge may not accept the lawyer’s argument for some reasons, these could be because it is contrary to natural justice, public policy or because it contradicts other higher authorities, etcetera.
2.2. The Rules of Statutory Interpretations
Judges do not make laws, their primary duty is to give it meaning as was intended by the legislature, it is evident that to find and implement the specifically contemplated intention of the lawmakers when the law was made, is not a doodle game, in this light, judges employ certain methods of interpretation to determine the meaning and scope of the law to ensure that it serve the purpose, these interpretation rules are as follows:
- The literal rule
- The golden rule, and
- The mischief rule
2.2.1. The Literal Rule
This rule demands that the law is taken in its crude and natural meaning, i.e. according to the wordings of the statute, in the case of Bronik Motors Ltd V. Wema Bank, Nnamani (JSC) remarked that
it is indeed the first of rules of interpretation that words must be given their ordinary, plain and natural meaning” this rule was applied in the English case of Fisher V. Bell (1961) The Restriction of Offensive Weapon Act (1959) made it an offense to ‘Offer for sale’ certain offensive weapons, including flick knives’, James Bell, a shopkeeper has displayed a knife of the same kind in the shop’s front window with the label ‘ejector knife’, he was charged by the police authority for displaying an illegal weapon for sale, the judge held that “he could not be convicted because, giving the words in the Act (The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959) their right, literal, and legal meaning, that Mr. Bell has not offered for sale the knives, moreover, in the law of contract, displaying something in the shop window is ‘NOT’ technically meaning an offer for sale, it is merely an invitation to treat
2. 2. 2. The Golden Rule
The ambiguity of words with multiple meanings have posed a significant challenge to the interpretation and application of laws (statutes), this linguistic complexities can lead to confusion, misinterpretation and inconsistency in deciding legal matters, when faced with ambiguous expressions, judges apply the Golden rule of interpretation.
This rule is to the effect that the literal rule shall not apply if it would lead to manifest absurdity or would result to what is obnoxious to the principle of public policy, the rule arises out of the fundamental principle that ‘Courts must interpret statute according to the intent of them that made it’ and also that the statute speaks the intention of the legislature , this rule was first articulated by Burton J. In the Irish case of Warburton V. Loveland (1828) thus
I understand that this is a rule in the construction of methods, [the literal rule] in the first case, the grammatical meaning of the words must apply if it contradicts or is inconsistent with the stated purpose or contradicts the purpose of the statute or contains any negligence, retaliation or inconsistency, the grammatical meaning should be modified, expounded or abbreviated to avoid such inconvenience but no further.
The rule was also applied in the case of R v. Allen (1872) the defendant was charged with bigamy under section 57 of the Offenses Against the Person’s Act, (1861) which made it an offense to ‘Marry’ while one’s spouse is still alive and not divorced, the court in determining the meaning of the word ‘Marry’ held that “the word ‘marry’ could not, in that context, mean ‘become legally married’ since that could never apply to someone who is already married to someone else.
Hence, to make sense of the provision, the word should be interpreted as meaning to ‘go through a second ceremony of marriage’, therefore, the golden rule is applicable where the literal interpretation of statute will defeat the intent and purpose the law is meant to serve, the court takes a departure from the literal rule and apply the Golden rule.
2 2.3. The Mischief Rule.
The mischief rule considers not only the exact wordings of the statute but also the legislator’s intention in enacting the law, in applying the rule, the court seeks to understand whether the lawmakers, at the time the law was made, intended to rectify a particular mischief, even though it might not be covered by a literal interpretation of the wordings of the statute.
For example, supposed a statute prohibits ‘vehicles’ in a park, a literal interpretation might include bicycles, skateboards, or even wheelchairs, if that does not meet the intent of the statute, in applying the mischief rule, a court might consider the purpose of the statute by determining what was the ‘mischief’ the statute aimed to address.
If it was noise pollution or it was to protect park users from harm and disturbance, by understanding the mischief and legislator’s intention, the court may interpret the word ‘vehicles’ more narrowly excluding non-motorized or emergency vehicle to achieve the statute’s purpose, this mean the judge particularly, is required to consider some historical facts and background information in relation to the drafting of the statute in order to discover the intent behind making such law by the legislature.
In the case of Corkery V. Carpenter (1951), on 19th January, a man called Shane Corkery was charged and sentenced to one month imprisonment for being drunk while he was in charge of a bicycle in public, it was about 14:14 pm, in the afternoon in Devon, England, the defendant Mr. Shane Corkery was drunk and he was pushing his pedal bicycle along broad Street in the area, He was in fact found guilty by the court for the offense and charged under section 22 of the Licensing Act (1872) with being drunk while in charge of a ‘carriage.’
To determine what the term ‘carriage’ in the cited law meant, the court resorted to use the mischief rule to reach the decision in the case, it was held that the Act’s intention is to stop the public from using any type of carriage on the highway while one is drunk from the cause of any intoxicants, the bicycle was indisputably one mode of transport and therefore, the user, Mr. Shane Corkery was correctly charged without any kind of uncertainty and doubt.
2.3. Adjudicatory System
Adjudicatory system refers to the process, mode or mechanism adopted by a legal system in resolving disputes, making decisions or determining rights and obligations through a formal process, the major adjudicatory systems that dominate the nature of investigation and adjudication around the world in both common law and civil jurisdictions are:
The adversarial adjudicatory system and the inquisitorial adjudicatory system, this essay considers in detail the adversarial system, adopted by the Nigerian legal system, in the inquisitorial adjudicatory system, the judge takes an active role in investigating the facts of the case, gathering evidence and questioning witnesses, it applies in civil law jurisdictions, i.e. European countries, Latin American countries, etcetera.
2.3.1. The adversarial adjudicatory system: this system is typical of a cognitive wrestling game, it is of common law origin and common law countries adopt same to determine facts in adjudication process, in the adversarial system, two counsels (lawyers) each for one party involved in the matter, they engage in a fiery and strategic battle, each advocating for their client’s interest, they present their cases with passion and conviction, attempting to outmaneuver and out-argue each other.
Hence, the courtroom becomes a stage for a careful choreographed dance with each side presenting evidence and questioning witnesses, challenging each other’s assertions and constructively striving to build a compelling narrative that supports their client’s position.
Lord Diplock remarked on the adversarial system thus “the judge’s role is that of an umpire, whose intervention in the play is limited to saying ‘How’s that?’ or giving such direction to the advocates as are necessary to ensure that the game is played according to the rules” the adversarial adjudicatory system is characterized by features which the counsels must be conversant with, these, amongst others, include:
- presentation of evidence
- constructive argument
- examination of witnesses.
In the light of the above, it is crucial to note that every judgment delivered is on the basis of the conduct and competency of the counsels, Lord Denning in the celebrated case of MacFOY V U.A.C observed thus:
you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It will collapse. So will any case where cogent and convincing evidence are not supplied, collapse
The weight of the evidence and validity of argument, coupled with others essential requirements are what determine if a counsel wins or loses a case, the outcome of a case may ultimately be unfavorable, leaving the client feeling frustrated and perhaps, even betrayed, if the counsel lacks the basic skills required, a counsel’s poor performance can have long-lasting consequences, damaging the client’s reputation, finance or even their freedom.
2.4. THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS.
This paper considers only three courts, based on their authority and jurisdictions, within the organizational structure and ranking of courts in a legal system.
- The Supreme Court (section 230 of the 1999 Constitution)
- The Court of Appeal (section 237 of the 1999 constitution)
- The High Court of a state (section 270 of the 1999 constitution)
This systemic and hierarchical arrangement influences courts’ decision through the interplay of some doctrines, among which are the doctrine of stare decisis and the doctrine of judicial precedent.
2.4.1. Stare decisis: is a Latin phrase which means ‘to stand by things decided’ or ‘let the decision stand’. The Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) defined “stare decisis” as “the doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation” it is a judicial doctrine under which court follows the principles, standards or rules of its prior decisions or the decision of superior courts, this principle is of two kinds.
2.4.1.a. The horizontal stare decisis: it is the doctrine that a court (e.g. the Supreme Court of Nigeria) must adhere to its own prior decisions, unless it finds compelling reasons to overrule itself,
2 4.1.b. The vertical stare decisis: this holds that a court must strictly follow the decisions handed down by higher courts within the same jurisdiction.
2.4.2. Judicial precedent: this doctrine holds that ‘like cases should be decided alike,’ William Blackstone, while commenting on the laws of England, describing judicial precedent, remarked thus, “a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or vary from, according to his private sentiments.”
The underlying object of this doctrines is to ensure consistency, coherency and predictability in the judicial processes, in Nigerian, all other courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in their hierarchical order, its decision cannot be overruled by any court or tribunal, on the contrary, the supreme Court can overrule the decision of any other court if it is not satisfied with the decision.
Thus, the hierarchy of courts can influence a judicial outcome in any legal matter in that if Mr. A secures judgment at the trial court (for instance, the state High Court) and his opponent Mr. B, is dissatisfied, he may appeal to a court, higher in the hierarchy i.e. the Court of Appeal, and the same judgement may be given in favour of Mr. B.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, flowing from the content of this essay, it is established that the intricate processes of legal reasoning, interpretation rules, adversarial adjudication, and the hierarchical court structure can lead to decisions that seem counterintuitive to those unfamiliar with the law.
As this research has pointed out, these factors contribute significantly to misunderstanding between the public’s expectations and the judicial decisions, judicial outcomes often diverges from the public’s expectations, largely due to the complexities of the legal system, the system’s reliance on precedent, procedural technicalities, and the adversarial approach makes court’s decision seem unjust or unexpected to those without a deep understanding of the legal processes and the law.
RECOMMENDATION
To address the discrepancy between court decisions and public’s expectations, the following measures could be considered:
(1) Improved Legal Education and Awareness: Public legal education programs could be implemented to inform citizens about the basics of the legal system, and its processes.
(2) Enhanced Transparency and Communication: Judges and legal professionals could engage in public forums and discussions to share their insights and perspectives on the legal system.
(3) Increased Access to Legal Resources: citizens should be granted access to the legal data base, especially with the aid of technological gadgets such as mobile phones and tablets, etcetera, online data base can be accessed from the comfort of one’s home, knowing the law is not the prerogative of those in the legal profession, as we all know, ignorance of the law is not an excuse (Ignorantia juris non excusat)
REFERENCES.
(1) S 6 of the 1999 constitution.
(2) Ss 174 (1) [a] [b] [c] of the 1999 constitution.
(3) Ss 174 (3) of the 1999 constitution.
(4) Ss 222 (1) of the Penal Code
(5) Sources of Nigerian law https://www.learnnigerianlaw.com/learn/legal-methods/law-sources
(6) Historical background on stare decisis doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/historical-background-on-the-stare-decisis-doctrine
(7) Judges role in adversarial and inquisitorial systems https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/judges-role-adversarial-inquisitorial-systems-philip-teoh
(8) S. 230, 237, 270 of the 1999 constitution
(9) Black’s law dictionary, (10th ed. 2014)
About the Author:
Kennedy Alpha is a 300-level Law student at the University of Maiduguri and hails from Taraba State. He is passionate about legal education, advocacy, and promoting public awareness of legal matters. With a growing interest in research, courtroom practice, and professional development, he is committed to building a strong foundation for a successful career in law.
Open to learning and mentorship, he can be reached via: WhatsApp: 07088998366 OR Email: [email protected]