Recently at a webinar on media coverage of virtual court proceedings in Nigeria, the vice president, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, explained why Nigerians need a new set of practice directions for virtual court proceedings. EDET UDOH reports.
Need for computerisation of court proceedings
The vice president, Prof Yemi Osinbajo said having contemplated the computerisation of court proceedings over the years, the endorsement of virtual court proceedings by a Supreme Court ruling is wise as, according to him, “It has saved our system of justice another catastrophic round of technical decisions around the constitutionality of virtual proceedings. He noted further that, “We are at a point where at least we know that virtual hearings are legal. This means that the Supreme Court is satisfied that appropriate means can be found to ensure that hearings are made public and that the press and indeed members of the public can access the proceedings. “I think that an opportunity that this offers us is to get rid of this issue of technicality as much as possible. And I am so pleased that the Supreme Court did not even hesitate in saying that virtual proceedings are legal. It is really a breath of fresh air considering the ways that we tend to magnify the issue of technicality to the point where you wonder where justice is.”
Technicalities removed Continuing, he said, “I am hoping that the opportunity we have in virtual proceedings would also be an opportunity to dispense with several of the unnecessary technical rules that we have in our adjectival law, laws of procedure, evidence and all that. And hopefully, we are able to get to the heart of trials and the heart of the matter such that we are buck down unnecessarily by technicality.” While commending the CEO of Gavel International, Mustapha Ogunsakin, for inviting him to participate, he noted that, “Reporting of court proceedings is a crucial exercise of the right to fair hearing, a cornerstone of which is that hearings must be held in public. How that right would be given full expression when court proceedings are within the encrypted confines of virtual platforms is really the subject of our conversion today.” In a statement through his media aide, Mr Laolu Akande, the vice president noted that the Attorneys General of Lagos and Ekiti states respectively deserve commendation for bringing the matter before the apex court to determine whether having regard to constitutional requirement that court proceedings must be held in public and whether court hearings by the use of technology, remote hearings of any kind, whether Zoom or WhatsApp, Microsoft Themes, Skype or any other audio-visual or video-conference platform are constitutional.
Virtual proceedings constitutional
Osinbajo said the Supreme Court while dismissing the suits themselves as premature and speculative nevertheless said that as things stood, virtual proceedings are constitutional thereby saving judicial system another catastrophic round of technical decisions around the constitutionality of virtual proceedings. According him, it may also be cautiously taken as a signal that the Supreme Court expects the lower courts to go down this new path with as little attention to technicality as possible. “So, we are at a point where at least we know that virtual hearings are legal. This means that the Supreme Court is satisfied that appropriate means can be found to ensure that hearings are public and that the press and indeed members of the public can access the proceedings. “The technical issues around this are straight-forward enough. If for example, the Zoom platform is the preferred option, the host, the registrar of the court would simply invite the press by making available the relevant coordinates of the meeting to enable them log on to the proceedings. “Just as the physical court can only sit a determined number of persons so the virtual court, depending on the platform being used, would probably have a stated number of persons who can access the proceedings. “Practice directions may have to indicate how and in what order invitations would be issued especially to the public.”“I think we are at an interesting place because in the past, it was always the traditional media that could be sanctioned for violations but now it seems that practically everyone on social media who chooses to publicise the proceedings of a court will be subject to the restrictions that the traditional media have always had.
The legal luminary explained that no one is allowed, except with permission, to publish proceedings of the court, adding that they really need to determine how this will work. “We need to ask the relevant questions and I think that in developing this practice direction, the media has to very quickly occupy the space so that the courts do not, without adequate information and sensitivity to the rights of the press, develop a set of practice direction that create more trouble than they are designed to solve. “This is one of the reasons why these sorts of conversations are important, because I hope that the proceedings of our conversation here would go possibly to the Supreme Court and to the Chief Judges of our courts so that they get a sense of what needs to be done by way of practice direction and what the problems may be. “Just by way of the sort of consideration that the media ought to have in reporting virtual proceedings, of course, there are system requirements that have to be looked into. It is not enough for one to simply say that he or she has access, we have to look at all the system requirements. What I have found in the past few months where I have been involved in quite a few zoom meetings, webex meetings and all of these different platforms is that very often, if the devices on either side are not adequate or the bandwidth is not adequate, the whole thing becomes a mess and it is impossible to actually get the best quality. “I think it is also important that there should be some kind of standardisation so as to ensure that the equipment that are used are the right kind of equipment that should be used for this virtual court proceedings.”
Helps computerisation of court processes
Osinbajo said by and large, he believes that Nigerians are at a very interesting place in court proceedings. “We have all been talking for years about computerising our court proceedings (e-filing etc.), no one knew that we would quickly come to the place that we are in today. So, in some sense, it’s thanks to COVID-19. We have been very quickly dragged to the virtual space and it is a good thing that it is the case.“I know that several people already use virtual platforms for arbitration but for purposes of trials, I am not so sure these sorts of platforms are the best. This is because we have to look at situations; for instance, if we are examining witnesses, we have to show them documents. What happens in those situations? Do we suspend some of the rules of evidence or some of the rules of procedure? How does a photocopy of a document look virtually? If you show me an original document virtually, is it still an original document or it’s just a copy of the original? “So, there are issues that we need to resolve. We need to resolve several issues of procedure and evidence so that we are better able to navigate these proceedings in a manner that not only serves the ends of justice but also in some obedience to the law. “I think that an opportunity that this offers us is to get rid of this issue of technicality as much as possible. And I am so pleased that the Supreme Court did not even hesitate in saying that virtual proceedings are legal. It is really a breath of fresh air considering the ways that we tend to magnify the issue of technicality to the point where you wonder where justice is.” He expressed the hope that the opportunity available in virtual proceedings would also be an opportunity to dispense with several of the unnecessary technical rules in our adjectival law, laws of procedure and evidence. ” While commending the event, he expressed optimism for more of such event in future, “I hope that this won’t be the last of this kind of conversation especially around virtual court proceedings and because the implications for our procedural laws are so broad and deep that we must certainly engage even much deeper in order to be able to arrive at a system that would work especially for the end of justice system.”
