Quote of the Day
“Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” — Lord Atkin, 1936
Lord Atkin made this observation in Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago, a case concerning public criticism of the courts. His argument was that people should be able to question judicial decisions in good faith without automatically being treated as enemies of the justice system.
Imagine two neighbours discussing a court judgment.
One believes the decision was fair. The other strongly disagrees.
They argue about the evidence, question the reasoning and wonder whether a different judge might have reached another conclusion.
Should that conversation be considered disrespectful?
Not necessarily.
Courts make decisions that can change people’s lives. Someone may lose their freedom, property, employment or the opportunity to remain with their family.
It is reasonable for citizens to want to understand how such decisions are reached.
Of course, disagreement does not mean a judgment is wrong. Judges must apply the law, consider evidence and sometimes make decisions that are deeply unpopular.
But respect for the courts should not require people to abandon their ability to ask questions.
There is a difference between criticizing a decision and threatening the people responsible for it.
There is also a difference between defending judicial independence and treating every concern about the justice system as an attack.
A court’s authority matters. So does the public’s confidence that the law is being applied fairly.
And confidence cannot simply be demanded. It must be earned.
Perhaps we should not measure respect for justice by how quietly people accept court decisions, but by whether they can question those decisions without fear and still respect the rule of law.
Source: Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago — Privy Council judgment, March 2, 1936.
Did You Know?
A person accused of a crime has the right to understand what is happening in court.
Imagine standing before a judge.
Someone reads out the charges against you. Lawyers begin speaking. Witnesses answer questions.
Everyone seems to understand what is happening.
Except you.
The proceedings are taking place in a language you barely understand.
How can you defend yourself if you cannot follow what is being said?
International human rights law recognizes this problem.
Article 14(3)(f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees people facing criminal charges the free assistance of an interpreter when they cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
This protection is not reserved for wealthy defendants or foreign nationals.
Cameroon became a party to the Covenant on June 27, 1984.
The issue is particularly relevant in a country where English and French are official languages, alongside many indigenous languages.
A person may understand everyday conversations in French or English but struggle to follow legal arguments, technical expressions or detailed testimony.
In June 2024, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights examined the right to interpretation in a case involving Tanzania.
The Court explained that the purpose is to enable an accused person to understand proceedings and participate in their defence. It also clarified that interpretation need not necessarily be provided in someone’s mother tongue if the person sufficiently understands another language used in court.
This distinction matters.
The right is about meaningful understanding, not simply personal language preference.
A fair trial requires more than bringing someone before a judge and following the correct procedures.
The accused person must have a genuine opportunity to understand the case and respond.
Because justice means little to someone who cannot understand what is being said about their own future.
Sources: United Nations — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14 · African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Zabron v. United Republic of Tanzania, June 4, 2024 · United Nations Treaty Collection — Cameroon’s accession to the Covenant.
For Discussion
Can we truly describe a trial as fair when the person being tried does not fully understand the proceedings?
In multilingual communities such as those found across Cameroon, what practical steps could make courts more accessible to people who struggle with the language used during legal proceedings?
And how can citizens question judicial decisions responsibly without undermining the independence of the courts?
Leave a Reply