The focus of this paper will be on the impact that Media Trials have on the society in general and the consequent repercussions. Often regarded as the fourth estate of the realm, the media is one of the four pillars of vibrant modern democracy. They observe the political process and play an essential role in the perception of political issues. The Media also plays a very diverse range of roles in the Nigerian society. Media aids in moulding the opinions of members of society, and it is capable of changing the whole viewpoint through which people perceive various events. In the recent era, the media’s role has overtime metamorphosed from merely being a medium of communicating news to a symbol of change. This is even more so in the advent of new media and social media, both of which are facilitated by the internet.
One can remember the key roles the media played in the Arab Spring; Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Nigeria and EndSARS campaigns. This unfettered access into the psyche of society creates a dilemma in the decision of legal matters. Judges are exposed to public opinions and media accounts for cases they handle while being tasked with the duty to remain unbiased. The unrestricted freedom of speech given to the media, particularly in light of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, is required to be heedfully exercised. Conducting a parallel trial of matters under trial will hinder a judge’s ability to decide a matter on its merits and where the judge decides against this ‘public or media verdict’, he/ she is termed as biased or corrupt. The recent protests led against Justice Mary Ukaego Odili, JSC as a result of the Supreme Court judgment in respect of the Bayelsa Governorship elections is an example.
Trial by Media:
The phrase ‘Trial by media’ or ‘media trial’ is not a legal term, although some of our laws allude to it. For instance, Rule 33 of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007 reproduced below states:
A lawyer or law firm engaged in or associated with the prosecution or defence of a criminal matter, or associated with a civil action shall not, while litigation is anticipated or pending in the matter, make or participate in making any extrajudicial statement that is calculated to prejudice or interfere with, or is reasonably capable of prejudicing or interfering with, the fair trial of the matter or the judgment or sentence thereon.
Trial by media is as a phrase that became popular in the late 20th and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after a verdict in a court of law. It’s first inception was the phrase “Trial by Television” which found light in response to the 3rd of February, 1967 television broadcast of The Frost Programme host David Frost.
The confrontation and Frost’s adversarial line of questioning of insurance fraudster Emil Savundra led to concern from ITV executives that it might affect Savundra’s right to a fair trial. The term became widely used during the famous trials of the policemen involved in the beating of Rodney King as well as the famous O.J. Simpson trial in the ’90s.
It is evident that trial by media is a process that unduly interferes in the delivery of justice. It is therefore essential to define the concept before delving into its justifiability or otherwise. A trial is a word often associated with the process of justice. An essential factor of any judicial system is that the accused should receive a fair trial.
In recent times, the media has presented itself into a ‘public court’ and has started interfering with Court proceedings. This is even more perceptible in the digital era. Through this, it prejudices the public and sometimes even judges and as a result, the accused, that should be assumed innocent, is presumed as a criminal leaving all his rights and liberty unpreserved.
Everyone has a constitutional right to have a fair trial in the court of law, by an impartial judge, uninfluenced by media – whatever form it takes. Media publications of any form which are calculated to poison the minds of judges create an atmosphere in which the administration of justice would be difficult or impossible. Courts and the public are increasingly recognising that the media has a genuine impact on the resolution of individual lawsuits. Criticism of media trials has often created a conflict between a person’s right to presumption of innocence and freedom of expression and the Press.
Litigation involving well-known companies or individuals has always grabbed the attention of the news media, especially when it involves sensational charges. It is no secret that as humans, we all have biases. The Diezani Alison-Madueke saga is a clear example. Mrs Alison-Madueke has yet to be charged to a Court of Law for an offence but has continually faced severe allegations, condemnation and prosecution in the media for an extended period. While we cannot speak to the veracity or otherwise of the allegations against her or her innocence or guilt, her ongoing medial trial has invariably created a public opinion about her innocence without a fair trial by a competent Court of law. Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended;
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.”
Article 7(1) (b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981 re-echoes this.
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle in criminal cases that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. That is until a judicial pronouncement on the guilt or otherwise of the accused person is made, he/she is to be treated as an innocent. Anything contrary would amount to a breach of the fundamental human rights of the individual.
An aspect of the presumption of innocence is that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person is on the prosecution which, according to Section 135 of the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011 is beyond reasonable doubt. From the media’s perspective, the right to freedom of expression and the Press allows them to engage in hot topics and issues in the society, which also include trials in Courts of law. This right is provided in section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, although this right is protected, there are some restrictions that come with it. These include any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, in the interest of public morality, public health and public order, and other similar examples. Media trials can sometimes become a problem because it gives rise to two conflicting ideologies – a fair trial and freedom of Press, both of which affect the public lives. Freedom of public in the democracy gives the right to the freedom of the Press. Globally, the trial of George Zimmerman was a brilliant example of a Media Trial and the ensuing riots that followed his acquittal are a caustic example of what could happen if the verdict of a media trial do not tally with the judgment of the Court. Another example is the public outcry after the Acquittal of President Donald J. trump by the United States Senate on the Articles of impeachment prepared against President Trump. Local examples of the ills of media trials are evident from how the media coverage of the Court trials of Col. Sambo Dasuki (Rtd.), Omoyele Sowore and Nnamdi Kanu crossed the lines of fair journalism and entered the realm of sentimental views and opinion. This is used as a justification for a campaign and investigative journalism. On the other hand, a trial which is not affected by external factors, i.e., free and fair trial is a fundamental principle of the judicial system.
A media trial may be prejudicial to the case of the parties, or it may influence the opinion of the court because, to be very honest, no person is impartial and unbiased. It is human nature to be biased towards a particular view, and even a Court can fall into this trap. In some cases, the media exceeds its freedom of speech and expression by broadcasting and publishing materials which are prejudicial to the interest of the parties like the character of the parties, photographs, criticism of the witnesses, etc. The media can be regarded as a necessary evil. The media uncovered several big cons, and the law merely followed them up. Media houses should, therefore, be given credit where it is due for extracting information that was so well guarded. One of the other advantages of having a free and robust press is that people are now aware of their rights because they now have access to such information. However, the fact remains that the media has to be a regulated one way or the other to protect the sanctity and integrity of the process of justice. As an essential player in the democracy, the media is enjoined to bestow upon itself fundamental morals and ethical codes that not only remind it of its vital role but also restrain it from morphing into an enemy it has fought against in the pursuit of democracy.
