OPINION: The Danger of Judicial Overreach

By Abraham Amah

The recent decision by a Federal High Court in Nigeria prohibiting two elected senators from addressing the press, despite no conviction or judicial finding of guilt, represents a troubling departure from both constitutional safeguards and democratic norms. As a citizen and a stakeholder in the Nigerian project, I find this development not only worrisome but also constitutionally indefensible. It is a dangerous anomaly that must be confronted with intellectual clarity and unwavering adherence to the rule of law.

The Nigerian Constitution—our supreme legal document—does not mince words when it comes to the fundamental rights of citizens. Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), enshrines the presumption of innocence, declaring unequivocally that “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.” This principle is not a mere legal technicality; it is a cornerstone of justice that guards against tyranny, arbitrariness, and the abuse of state power.

Moreover, Section 39(1) of the same Constitution guarantees freedom of expression: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” This provision does not exempt public office holders, nor does it allow the judiciary—or any arm of government—to suppress this right without due and lawful cause.

To prohibit individuals, especially elected senators who represent the voice of the people, from speaking to the press without any judicial finding of wrongdoing, amounts to a violation of their constitutional rights. It sets a perilous precedent where a citizen may be silenced based on suspicion or mere allegation, rather than proven guilt. This, to my mind, is judicial overreach and a direct affront to the democratic ethos upon which Nigeria is built.

Even under our criminal justice system, restrictions on personal liberties such as speech or movement must be proportional, necessary, and anchored on due process. If a court deems it necessary to restrict speech, it must be based on a compelling state interest, backed by evidence, and most importantly, follow a fair hearing process. To act otherwise is to turn the court into an instrument of repression rather than a temple of justice.

One must also ask: what purpose does this gag order serve? If it is to prevent interference with ongoing investigations or judicial proceedings, such interference must be proven or at least reasonably anticipated. The law does not operate on hypothetical dangers. The court must tread with caution and act within its constitutional boundaries.

This is not just about two senators. It is about the collective rights of all Nigerians. If such orders go unchallenged, what stops a future court from silencing journalists, activists, or private citizens simply for expressing dissent or exposing wrongdoing?

Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, not a judicial autocracy. Our courts are meant to interpret and uphold the law, not manufacture restrictions that stifle liberty and undermine democratic accountability.

In conclusion, no citizen—high or low—should be stripped of their constitutional rights without due process. And no court, however well-intentioned, should substitute suspicion for guilt or preemptively curtail freedoms in a bid to satisfy political convenience. To do so is to sow the seeds of injustice in the very garden where justice is meant to flourish.

Let this be a clarion call to all lovers of democracy: constitutional rights are not optional privileges—they are sacred obligations owed to every Nigerian. Any breach of them must be resisted with the full weight of legal and moral authority.

Elder Amah, a frequent Commentator on National Issues, writes from Umuahia