In Nigeria, we have mastered the art of suspicion. Tell a crowd that a matter will be “heard in chambers,” and watch how faces change. Someone will whisper, “Hmm.” Another will conclude, “Something is happening.” Before long, social media has delivered its own judgment.
But let us slow down.
The phrase “in chambers” has suffered from bad public relations. It sounds secretive. It sounds exclusive. It sounds like justice has relocated from the public square to a hidden corner. In a country where trust in institutions often walks on crutches, it is easy to assume the worst.
Yet the truth is less dramatic and more procedural.
A judge’s chambers is simply the judge’s official office within the court premises. It is not a secret cave. It is not a private residence. It is part of the court. When a matter is heard in chambers, it means that instead of sitting in the open courtroom with the public gallery, the judge is addressing that particular issue inside the office setting.
The venue shifts. The authority does not.
Now, the Constitution is not silent on this matter. Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every person the right to fair hearing. It also states that proceedings shall be held in public. Nigerians like that word “public.” It reassures us. It suggests transparency.
But even the Constitution recognises that life is not always black and white. The same Section 36 allows proceedings to be held in private in certain circumstances — in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, the welfare of minors, or the protection of private lives. In other words, openness is the rule. Privacy is the exception. But the exception exists for good reason.
Imagine a custody battle between husband and wife where painful, intimate details of family life are to be discussed. Must the entire neighbourhood sit and listen? Imagine an adoption proceeding involving a vulnerable child. Should the child’s history become afternoon entertainment for courtroom spectators? The law says no. Dignity matters.
There are also practical realities. Not every court appearance is a full-blown trial with dramatic objections and thunderous cross-examination. Many appearances are administrative. Lawyers may need to agree on dates, correct a procedural error, clarify compliance with an earlier order, or address an urgent interim application. Rather than consume valuable courtroom time, the judge may call counsel into chambers to resolve the issue efficiently.
It is the difference between holding a town hall meeting and having a staff meeting. Both are official. One is simply more intimate in scale.
Urgent applications also fall into this category. There are situations where delay can destroy the very subject of litigation. An injunction to prevent demolition of property. An order to restrain dissipation of funds. In such moments, the judge may consider preliminary arguments in chambers. What remains sacrosanct, however, is fair hearing. Both sides must be given opportunity to present their case, except in narrowly defined situations recognised by law. Section 36 does not retire because the door of the chambers closes.
This is the crucial point Nigerians must understand. “In chambers” does not mean “in secret.” It does not mean one party is secretly negotiating victory. It does not mean the Constitution has been suspended. Orders made in chambers are still part of court proceedings. They are recorded. They are subject to appeal. They are reviewable. The law follows the judge wherever the judge sits.
Our problem, perhaps, is that we often confuse atmosphere with substance. We believe justice must be noisy to be genuine. We think fairness requires an audience. But justice is not theatre. It is a disciplined application of law to facts. Whether delivered under bright courtroom lights or within the quieter walls of chambers, the obligation of the judge remains the same.
Of course, vigilance is healthy in a democracy. No institution should be shielded from scrutiny. If a proceeding conducted in chambers violates fair hearing, denies a party representation, or confers secret advantage, that would offend the Constitution and can be challenged. But suspicion should not replace understanding.
Nigeria’s legal system is procedural by design. It accommodates flexibility without surrendering fairness. It allows privacy without endorsing secrecy. It balances transparency with dignity.
So the next time you hear that a judge will hear a matter in chambers, resist the reflex of alarm. Ask what kind of case it is. Consider whether privacy, urgency or administrative efficiency may justify that setting. Remember that the real question is not where the judge is seated, but whether both parties are heard and the law is followed.
In the final analysis, justice in Nigeria is not measured by the size of the courtroom or the number of spectators present. It is measured by adherence to Section 36 of the Constitution, by respect for due process, and by fidelity to fairness.
The furniture may change. The responsibility does not.
READ ALSO:
Epileptic power: FG to establish Grid Asset Management Company
Tinubu suspends cashless payment at federal airports
EXTRA: Landed in FUOYE, loving the ambience, By Sunday Saanu
Don’t meddle in Middle East crisis, Chief Imams warn Nigerians
MRA condemns police summons to activist over FOI request
Iyabo Obasanjo calls for competence-driven female leadership
NDLEA arrests drug lord wanted in UK after 15 years on the run
Troops rescue two kidnap victims in Plateau
I-G unveils reforms, warns police personnel against misconduct
