The House of Representatives has commenced moves to strengthen protections for judicial officers against intimidation, harassment and personal attacks, particularly on social media and broadcasting platforms.
During Thursday’s plenary, lawmakers adopted a motion urging Nigerians, media organisations and legal practitioners to distinguish between legitimate criticism of court judgments and actions capable of undermining judicial independence.
The motion, titled “Need to Safeguard Judicial Independence and Protect Judicial Officers from Unwarranted Intimidation, Harassment and Public Vilification through Social Media and Broadcasting Networks,” was sponsored by the member representing Shomolu Federal Constituency, Lagos State, Ademorin Kuye.
Presenting the motion, Kuye described judicial independence as a cornerstone of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy and rule of law. He noted that judges are constitutionally mandated to interpret laws and adjudicate disputes without fear or favour.
According to him, the increasing use of social media and broadcasting platforms to circulate unverified allegations, misleading interpretations and inflammatory commentary about court proceedings poses a threat to the judiciary’s credibility and independence.
He argued that sustained campaigns of harassment and public vilification could subject judicial officers to undue pressure and erode public confidence in the justice system. While acknowledging citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of expression, Kuye stressed that criticism of judicial decisions should remain responsible and focused on legal issues rather than personal attacks on judges.
The motion generated extensive debate among lawmakers.
Deputy Minority Whip, Mansur Soro, warned against any action that could undermine the constitutional guarantee of free speech, noting that existing institutions already possess mechanisms for addressing threats and harassmen.
Similarly, Aliyu Misau argued that public confidence in the judiciary must be earned through transparent and credible judgments rather than legislative protection. He called for investigations into specific allegations of intimidation before broader measures are adopted.
Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on Health Institutions, Patrick Umoh, expressed concern over what he described as the rise of a “court of public opinion,” where judicial officers are often condemned without proper understanding of legal proceedings.
Umoh, a legal practitioner, noted that social media narratives frequently differ from the facts and legal arguments presented in court. He warned that attacks on judges could intensify as the country approaches the 2027 general elections and election-related disputes increase.
On the other hand, Anambra lawmaker Peter Anakwe cautioned against measures that could be perceived as attempts to silence the media or restrict public scrutiny of judicial decisions. He maintained that court judgments, once made public, should remain open to criticism and analysis.
Also contributing, Wole Oke said the motion was aimed solely at protecting judicial officers from threats and harassment, not shielding their judgments from legitimate public debate or criticism.
Responding to concerns raised during deliberations, Kuye clarified that the proposal did not seek to create new offences or curtail constitutional freedoms. Rather, he said its objective was to encourage enforcement of existing laws protecting judicial officers from intimidation and unlawful attacks.
Following debate, the House urged the National Judicial Council, the Nigerian Bar Association, the National Broadcasting Commission and other relevant bodies to strengthen mechanisms for addressing threats, harassment and attempts to improperly influence judges.
Lawmakers also called on the Federal Ministry of Justice to increase public awareness of legal channels available to litigants dissatisfied with court decisions or alleging judicial misconduct.
In addition, media practitioners, political actors and social media users were advised to avoid personal attacks capable of intimidating judges or weakening public confidence in the judiciary, while law enforcement agencies were urged to investigate credible reports of threats and harassment against judicial officers.
