DISTURBING TREND OVER EL-RUFAI’S TRIAL
The decision by security operatives to bar journalists from covering the trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir Ahmad
@ElRufai, is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous judicial precedent.
The allegations and charges against El-Rufai before the Kaduna High Court and the Federal High Court are all matters of public interest as they relate to his handling of public funds and other matters during his tenure as governor of the state and thereafter. Therefore, this puzzling decision to deny journalists access to the trial directly contravenes several constitutional provisions, principally those of Section 36 (3), which stipulates that the proceedings of a court or tribunal shall be held in public, and that of Section 36 (4), which stipulates the right to a free hearing in “public” in criminal cases.
The only exception to these constitutional provisions is that the court has the right to bar certain individuals, excluding parties to the trial, only in the case of defence, public morals, public safety, public order, and the protection of minors. None of those exclusionary grounds apply in this instance, and no argument can be made to justify them.
It goes without saying that Nigeria is not a military junta; it is a democracy. In every democratic context, the principle of open justice remains fundamental. This means that in any country where democracy is the system of governance, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Judicial procedures must therefore be open and transparent.
The obfuscation of El-Rufai’s trial behind a smokescreen of imposed silence, gag orders, and media blackout, which came about with no court order and no justification whatsoever, violates these key constitutional provisions and democratic tenets.
In addition, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria does not only guarantee a right to free hearing and open trials; it contains key provisions that impose certain duties on journalists and protect their right to carry out these duties. Section 39(1) guarantees freedom of expression, the right to hold and impart opinions, and, crucially, the right to receive information. Section 22 of the Constitution specifically imposes an institutional obligation on journalists by charging them to hold the government accountable and uphold the fundamental objectives of the state. Barring journalists from a trial like this is a direct contravention of two constitutional provisions. We note that not only were journalists barred from covering the trial and performing their constitutionally sanctioned roles, but no court order or justification was provided for this decision.
Furthermore, we are deeply concerned that the decision to bar journalists from this trial was not enforced by court officials but by security operatives. This is a very concerning development as it effectively shows that some security agencies that are under the control of the executive arm of government, are exercising control over a judicial procedure in which they have no constitutional role. This clearly contravenes the principles of separation of powers that provide independence to the three arms of government—the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
1/2