The Pierce Tyranny Of Self In Our Legal Norms

Just recently an insignificant issue in the context of our domestic legal indices of importance occurred in the city of London, which was the issuance of a super injunction by the British courts on the extant privacy rights of a citizen for non-disclosure, in a case of alleged extra-marital adulterous affair with the spouse of a brother-relative, thus the British media was barred from naming him as a participant in the alleged incestuous relationship, even though the fact of him being the individual in issue has already been celebrated by the internet, because most of the social-media websites have already named him as the principal culprit in the infamous affair, indeed while the British press were tied in the performance of their constitutional responsibility of dissemination of information, the out of jurisdiction Scottish and Northern Irish press had a field day with the story, talk less of the United State's tabloid media that celebrated the story as a defiant stand to efforts at gagging the press, with the instrumentality of a judicial process that is strictly out of tune with the openness of present times. This is the circumstantial scenario that the Ryan Giggs super injunction created to that perennial clash between fundamental right to privacy and constitutional right of full disclosure by the press.

However, an issue of note is what could have concerned Nigeria's domestic legal affairs with a matter that is purely of foreign in origin and concern, the historical origin of the Nigerian legal system which emanated from the English common law and umbilical cord linkages between the international jurisprudence, makes the happening within the British judicature to be of interest within the Nigerian legal jurisdiction, thus any issue dealing with testing the bounds of legal interest of a citizen, should surely elicit examination of the issues at stake and the underlining reasons for arriving at such a legal position, more so as the issue of judicial injunctions have remained a thorny issue within the operation of our collective judicial system, indeed the judicial effect of an injunction on the constitutionally enshrined fundamental right to free press becomes an issue of jurisprudential postulation, the issue in contention is that within the latitudinal capacity of individual rights, where lies the societal interest of getting access to information that is of communal interest, which encapsulated the concept of open society ideals as integral part of the provisions of our constitutional documents.

Since the passage of the Magna Carta Bill of Right as a legal instrument safeguarding the individual interest of English citizens in 1215, the world has witnessed the progressive affirmation of the right of an individual against the might of communal state, which ensured that individual citizens were always able to obtain and extricate difficult writs from the state, thus arose the ability of persons under the legal interdiction to obtain the Writ of Habeas Corpus as a relief to the tyranny of instrument of state power, that allows the production of an individual before the law courts for enforcement of constitutionally enshrined fundamental human right, as such in recent times the individual citizen has always had so much protection within the boundaries of law, in typical modern states that observe the true tenets of liberal democracy, which celebrates the characteristic component of following the necessary dictates of the rule of law, yet with all these subsisting progress on the individual right of a citizen, its enjoyment which is a cerebral good to the continuous expression of sustainable democratic norms and values, lie an evident threat to the collective interest of communal nation state in the proper functionality of the society, where the personal needs of individuals does obfuscate the collective wants of the organized amalgam called society.

Right from the origin, formulation and adoption of the concept of the Nigerian legal norms, the precept of an injunction as a judicial avenue for seeking relief from the harsh dictates of law, has always been present and available to those disadvantaged by the vicissitude of time, thus injunctions were always encouraged as a means of relief, to those likely to be legally injured should their issue in contention meet with the fullness of time, thus the Latin phrasal term status quo ante was coined to estoppe the parties in their subsisting positions, of which any change could cause a damage that proclamatory directive cannot reverse. These was the position of things until the present times when injunctions became instruments of abuse of the judicial processes, indeed it was one of such injunctions sought by the infamous Association for Better Nigeria, that caused the conveniently engineered annulment of the June 12 presidential elections, thus leading to the itinerant derailment of the third republic democratic project. In fact the fear of improper issuance of injunctions has been attributed to the presence of judicial powers subverting provision in the 2010 Electoral Act, where section 87(11) barred the powers of the courts to issuing injunctions stopping the conduct of general and political party primary elections.

While the concept of law encapsulated within the ideals of the promotion and protection of civil liberty of an individual, has became the epitome of man's celebration of attaining the height of acceptable civilized norms, yet such gladdening position is threatening the collective interest of the society, to protect itself from the selfish actions of men, indeed while the normal postulation is that the latitudinal width of the other persons content right stops at the tip of my nose, the current tyrannical position is that it is I that aggregate the position placement of my nose, thus an alleged irresponsible behavior is rewarded by the British courts to protect clear immoral action, while in Nigeria the Chief Justice of the Federation had to cause the issuance of new practice directions severally, against the obtaining and issuing of frivolous injunction to individuals of questionable claims, in fact the Electoral Act 2010 provision checking the powers of courts to issuing injunctions, rather celebrates impotence of creating instruments solely for the protection of individual rights, but against the greater communal interest that is supposed to encapsulate measured extent rights of individuals.

The Pierce Tyranny Of Self In Our Legal Norms

Just recently an insignificant issue in the context of our domestic legal indices of importance occurred in the city of London, which was the issuance of a super injunction by the British courts on the extant privacy rights of a citizen for non-disclosure, in a case of alleged extra-marital adulterous affair with the spouse of a brother-relative, thus the British media was barred from naming him as a participant in the alleged incestuous relationship, even though the fact of him being the individual in issue has already been celebrated by the internet, because most of the social-media websites have already named him as the principal culprit in the infamous affair, indeed while the British press were tied in the performance of their constitutional responsibility of dissemination of information, the out of jurisdiction Scottish and Northern Irish press had a field day with the story, talk less of the United State's tabloid media that celebrated the story as a defiant stand to efforts at gagging the press, with the instrumentality of a judicial process that is strictly out of tune with the openness of present times. This is the circumstantial scenario that the Ryan Giggs super injunction created to that perennial clash between fundamental right to privacy and constitutional right of full disclosure by the press.

However, an issue of note is what could have concerned Nigeria's domestic legal affairs with a matter that is purely of foreign in origin and concern, the historical origin of the Nigerian legal system which emanated from the English common law and umbilical cord linkages between the international jurisprudence, makes the happening within the British judicature to be of interest within the Nigerian legal jurisdiction, thus any issue dealing with testing the bounds of legal interest of a citizen, should surely elicit examination of the issues at stake and the underlining reasons for arriving at such a legal position, more so as the issue of judicial injunctions have remained a thorny issue within the operation of our collective judicial system, indeed the judicial effect of an injunction on the constitutionally enshrined fundamental right to free press becomes an issue of jurisprudential postulation, the issue in contention is that within the latitudinal capacity of individual rights, where lies the societal interest of getting access to information that is of communal interest, which encapsulated the concept of open society ideals as integral part of the provisions of our constitutional documents.

Since the passage of the Magna Carta Bill of Right as a legal instrument safeguarding the individual interest of English citizens in 1215, the world has witnessed the progressive affirmation of the right of an individual against the might of communal state, which ensured that individual citizens were always able to obtain and extricate difficult writs from the state, thus arose the ability of persons under the legal interdiction to obtain the Writ of Habeas Corpus as a relief to the tyranny of instrument of state power, that allows the production of an individual before the law courts for enforcement of constitutionally enshrined fundamental human right, as such in recent times the individual citizen has always had so much protection within the boundaries of law, in typical modern states that observe the true tenets of liberal democracy, which celebrates the characteristic component of following the necessary dictates of the rule of law, yet with all these subsisting progress on the individual right of a citizen, its enjoyment which is a cerebral good to the continuous expression of sustainable democratic norms and values, lie an evident threat to the collective interest of communal nation state in the proper functionality of the society, where the personal needs of individuals does obfuscate the collective wants of the organized amalgam called society.

Right from the origin, formulation and adoption of the concept of the Nigerian legal norms, the precept of an injunction as a judicial avenue for seeking relief from the harsh dictates of law, has always been present and available to those disadvantaged by the vicissitude of time, thus injunctions were always encouraged as a means of relief, to those likely to be legally injured should their issue in contention meet with the fullness of time, thus the Latin phrasal term status quo ante was coined to estoppe the parties in their subsisting positions, of which any change could cause a damage that proclamatory directive cannot reverse. These was the position of things until the present times when injunctions became instruments of abuse of the judicial processes, indeed it was one of such injunctions sought by the infamous Association for Better Nigeria, that caused the conveniently engineered annulment of the June 12 presidential elections, thus leading to the itinerant derailment of the third republic democratic project. In fact the fear of improper issuance of injunctions has been attributed to the presence of judicial powers subverting provision in the 2010 Electoral Act, where section 87(11) barred the powers of the courts to issuing injunctions stopping the conduct of general and political party primary elections.

While the concept of law encapsulated within the ideals of the promotion and protection of civil liberty of an individual, has became the epitome of man's celebration of attaining the height of acceptable civilized norms, yet such gladdening position is threatening the collective interest of the society, to protect itself from the selfish actions of men, indeed while the normal postulation is that the latitudinal width of the other persons content right stops at the tip of my nose, the current tyrannical position is that it is I that aggregate the position placement of my nose, thus an alleged irresponsible behavior is rewarded by the British courts to protect clear immoral action, while in Nigeria the Chief Justice of the Federation had to cause the issuance of new practice directions severally, against the obtaining and issuing of frivolous injunction to individuals of questionable claims, in fact the Electoral Act 2010 provision checking the powers of courts to issuing injunctions, rather celebrates impotence of creating instruments solely for the protection of individual rights, but against the greater communal interest that is supposed to encapsulate measured extent rights of individuals.

The Pierce Tyranny Of Self In Our Legal Norms

Just recently an insignificant issue in the context of our domestic legal indices of importance occurred in the city of London, which was the issuance of a super injunction by the British courts on the extant privacy rights of a citizen for non-disclosure, in a case of alleged extra-marital adulterous affair with the spouse of a brother-relative, thus the British media was barred from naming him as a participant in the alleged incestuous relationship, even though the fact of him being the individual in issue has already been celebrated by the internet, because most of the social-media websites have already named him as the principal culprit in the infamous affair, indeed while the British press were tied in the performance of their constitutional responsibility of dissemination of information, the out of jurisdiction Scottish and Northern Irish press had a field day with the story, talk less of the United State's tabloid media that celebrated the story as a defiant stand to efforts at gagging the press, with the instrumentality of a judicial process that is strictly out of tune with the openness of present times. This is the circumstantial scenario that the Ryan Giggs super injunction created to that perennial clash between fundamental right to privacy and constitutional right of full disclosure by the press.

However, an issue of note is what could have concerned Nigeria's domestic legal affairs with a matter that is purely of foreign in origin and concern, the historical origin of the Nigerian legal system which emanated from the English common law and umbilical cord linkages between the international jurisprudence, makes the happening within the British judicature to be of interest within the Nigerian legal jurisdiction, thus any issue dealing with testing the bounds of legal interest of a citizen, should surely elicit examination of the issues at stake and the underlining reasons for arriving at such a legal position, more so as the issue of judicial injunctions have remained a thorny issue within the operation of our collective judicial system, indeed the judicial effect of an injunction on the constitutionally enshrined fundamental right to free press becomes an issue of jurisprudential postulation, the issue in contention is that within the latitudinal capacity of individual rights, where lies the societal interest of getting access to information that is of communal interest, which encapsulated the concept of open society ideals as integral part of the provisions of our constitutional documents.

Since the passage of the Magna Carta Bill of Right as a legal instrument safeguarding the individual interest of English citizens in 1215, the world has witnessed the progressive affirmation of the right of an individual against the might of communal state, which ensured that individual citizens were always able to obtain and extricate difficult writs from the state, thus arose the ability of persons under the legal interdiction to obtain the Writ of Habeas Corpus as a relief to the tyranny of instrument of state power, that allows the production of an individual before the law courts for enforcement of constitutionally enshrined fundamental human right, as such in recent times the individual citizen has always had so much protection within the boundaries of law, in typical modern states that observe the true tenets of liberal democracy, which celebrates the characteristic component of following the necessary dictates of the rule of law, yet with all these subsisting progress on the individual right of a citizen, its enjoyment which is a cerebral good to the continuous expression of sustainable democratic norms and values, lie an evident threat to the collective interest of communal nation state in the proper functionality of the society, where the personal needs of individuals does obfuscate the collective wants of the organized amalgam called society.

Right from the origin, formulation and adoption of the concept of the Nigerian legal norms, the precept of an injunction as a judicial avenue for seeking relief from the harsh dictates of law, has always been present and available to those disadvantaged by the vicissitude of time, thus injunctions were always encouraged as a means of relief, to those likely to be legally injured should their issue in contention meet with the fullness of time, thus the Latin phrasal term status quo ante was coined to estoppe the parties in their subsisting positions, of which any change could cause a damage that proclamatory directive cannot reverse. These was the position of things until the present times when injunctions became instruments of abuse of the judicial processes, indeed it was one of such injunctions sought by the infamous Association for Better Nigeria, that caused the conveniently engineered annulment of the June 12 presidential elections, thus leading to the itinerant derailment of the third republic democratic project. In fact the fear of improper issuance of injunctions has been attributed to the presence of judicial powers subverting provision in the 2010 Electoral Act, where section 87(11) barred the powers of the courts to issuing injunctions stopping the conduct of general and political party primary elections.

While the concept of law encapsulated within the ideals of the promotion and protection of civil liberty of an individual, has became the epitome of man's celebration of attaining the height of acceptable civilized norms, yet such gladdening position is threatening the collective interest of the society, to protect itself from the selfish actions of men, indeed while the normal postulation is that the latitudinal width of the other persons content right stops at the tip of my nose, the current tyrannical position is that it is I that aggregate the position placement of my nose, thus an alleged irresponsible behavior is rewarded by the British courts to protect clear immoral action, while in Nigeria the Chief Justice of the Federation had to cause the issuance of new practice directions severally, against the obtaining and issuing of frivolous injunction to individuals of questionable claims, in fact the Electoral Act 2010 provision checking the powers of courts to issuing injunctions, rather celebrates impotence of creating instruments solely for the protection of individual rights, but against the greater communal interest that is supposed to encapsulate measured extent rights of individuals.