The Courtroom, Not Social Media, Is the Proper Arena for Justice -By Adenike Ajanlekoko

The rise of social media has transformed public discourse, giving ordinary citizens unprecedented power to demand accountability and expose alleged wrongdoing. While this development has strengthened civic participation, it has also created a dangerous tendency to substitute online opinion for judicial determination.

In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, this is a path that must be approached with caution.

One of the most important legal principles designed to safeguard the administration of justice is the doctrine of sub judice. Simply put, once a matter is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction, parties and members of the public are expected to exercise restraint in making comments capable of influencing, prejudicing, or pre-judging the outcome of the proceedings.

Contrary to popular belief, the doctrine does not impose a blanket ban on discussing matters before the courts. Fair commentary and responsible analysis remain permissible. However, when public statements cross the line into attempts to influence judicial proceedings, intimidate witnesses, or create pressure on the court through sustained media campaigns, they may amount to contempt of court under Nigerian law.

This distinction is particularly relevant in the ongoing controversy involving social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VDM, and Assistant Inspector-General of Police Moshood Olohundare Jimoh.

At present, the courts have not determined that VDM’s public comments constitute contempt. In other words, he remains entitled to express opinions within the limits of the law, provided such comments do not threaten the integrity of the judicial process.

Equally important, any serious allegations made in the public domain must ultimately be supported by credible evidence before the appropriate legal authorities.

Should a trial judge conclude that persistent public commentary is capable of interfering with the fair administration of justice, the court possesses adequate legal powers to protect its proceedings. Such powers include summoning individuals to account for their conduct where necessary.

The judiciary exists precisely to determine facts through admissible evidence, not through online popularity contests.

If, as VDM has repeatedly asserted, he possesses substantial evidence to support his allegations, then the logical and lawful course of action is to place that evidence before the appropriate investigative and judicial institutions.

Public confidence in the justice system is strengthened when allegations are subjected to legal scrutiny rather than prolonged social media exchanges.

Indeed, VDM has indicated his intention to submit a formal petition. That is the proper route. Nigeria’s legal framework provides several institutional channels for addressing allegations of misconduct, including petitions to the Police Service Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Inspector-General of Police, or the courts where appropriate.

These mechanisms exist to ensure that allegations are investigated fairly and transparensively, with due process afforded to all parties.

It is therefore unsurprising that AIG Jimoh has publicly maintained that he will not engage in a social media dispute over matters already receiving legal attention. His position, expressed during a television interview, reflects an understanding that public office holders, particularly senior law enforcement officials, should avoid actions capable of undermining ongoing legal processes or creating parallel trials in the media.

The same institutional restraint applies to the office of the Inspector-General of Police. The head of the Nigeria Police Force cannot simply adjudicate allegations circulating on social media without formal complaints, investigations, and established legal procedures.

The rule of law demands evidence, due process, and institutional accountability, not decisions driven by online sentiment.

This should not be mistaken for an attempt to silence criticism. On the contrary, constructive criticism is indispensable in every democratic society. Citizens have every right to question authority, demand transparency, and hold public officials accountable.

However, accountability is most effective when pursued through lawful channels capable of producing enforceable outcomes.

Social media is a powerful tool for raising awareness, but it is not a courtroom. Neither judges nor investigators decide cases based on hashtags, trending conversations, or viral videos. Justice depends on admissible evidence, impartial hearings, and judicial independence.

Ultimately, the law is neither emotional nor partisan. It protects both the accuser and the accused by ensuring that allegations are tested against facts rather than public opinion.

That is why the doctrine of sub judice remains essential to preserving confidence in Nigeria’s justice system.

As this matter continues to unfold, all parties would do well to remember a timeless legal principle: ignorance of the law excuses no one, and justice is best served not in the court of public opinion, but in the courts established by law.

Adenike Ajanlekoko writes from Ikeja, Lagos state. Email: aydalliance@gmail.com