Saving the Soul of the Adversarial Legal System: Judicial Misconceptions, Public Perception, and the Imperative for Systemic Reform

By Sam Kargbo 

Abstract

The adversarial legal system is built on the principle of impartial adjudication, wherein judges serve as neutral arbiters between contending parties. However, growing public misperception of the judiciary’s role, fueled by systemic misunderstandings and cynical media narratives, has placed judicial officers under intense and often unfair scrutiny. This essay critically examines the challenges undermining judicial independence and integrity under the adversarial model, with particular focus on misplaced societal expectations, the erosion of public trust, and the dangers of populist interpretations of legal outcomes. It concludes with a robust set of remedial proposals aimed at revitalizing confidence in the judiciary and protecting the foundational values of the justice delivery system.

1. Introduction: Misunderstanding the Adversarial Framework
The adversarial legal tradition defines the role of a judge not as an investigator or seeker of truth, but as an impartial arbiter assessing facts and applying law within the confines of procedures established by legal precedent and statute. Yet, increasingly, this principle is distorted in public discourse, with judicial officers expected to “rescue” cases—particularly criminal prosecutions—that fall short due to investigatory or prosecutorial lapses. Such expectations mirror the inquisitorial tradition, wherein judges adopt a more active investigative role.

The resulting dissonance is not merely theoretical; it has tangible consequences. Judges are vilified for acquittals rooted in procedural fairness or evidentiary insufficiency, held responsible for decisions that, in truth, reflect the failures of other institutions. This essay explores the implications of these trends and presents a framework for restoring the dignity and functionality of judicial office within the adversarial system.

2. The Burden of Misplaced Expectations
In the adversarial system, the burden of proof rests squarely on the parties—typically the prosecution in criminal trials and the claimant in civil proceedings. However, the frequent failure of prosecuting authorities to discharge this burden effectively has led to a disturbing pattern: judicial officers are blamed for outcomes that stem from procedural fidelity rather than judicial discretion.

A dangerous narrative has emerged wherein any procedural dismissal or acquittal is interpreted as evidence of corruption or complicity on the part of the judiciary. Legal reasoning is frequently overshadowed by public sentiment, social media backlash, and journalistic oversimplification. In this climate, judicial officers become scapegoats for the broader failings of the justice system.

This trend distorts democratic discourse, undermines respect for due process, and exposes judicial officers to threats—both reputational and physical.

RECALL THE ALL EYES ON THE JUDICIARY.
3. The Erosion of Judicial Independence and Integrity
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy. Yet, the growing politicization of judicial decisions, particularly in high-profile cases, has created an environment in which judicial officers must navigate not only legal issues but also public outrage and political pressure.

The automatic attribution of controversial decisions to corruption—without reference to evidentiary context or procedural standards—has bred cynicism and delegitimized court rulings. While judicial corruption exists and must be addressed, the overextension of such claims diminishes the credibility of legitimate judicial review, discourages talented professionals from joining the bench, and threatens the very concept of impartial adjudication.
Unchecked, these dynamics risk transforming judges into populists or appeasers—roles fundamentally incompatible with their constitutional function.

4. Remedial Measures: Rebuilding Trust, Clarity, and Capacity
To arrest this decline and restore institutional confidence, a multidimensional response is required. The following measures are proposed:
A. Public Legal Education
1 Launch sustained civic education campaigns to illuminate the roles of judges, the nature of legal procedure, and the principle of the burden of proof.
2 Partner with civil society, educational institutions, and the media to produce accessible, engaging legal content.
3 Sponsor public-service programming—such as radio or television series—that demystify courtroom processes and promote legal literacy.

B. Judicial Communication Infrastructure
1 Establish official communication units within the judiciary to articulate legal decisions in lay terms, especially in sensitive or high-profile matters.
2 Proactively counter misinformation while preserving the principle of judicial restraint in public discourse.

C. Bar Accountability and Prosecutorial Reform
1 Enforce professional accountability for advocates and prosecutors through strengthened disciplinary bodies and continuing legal education.
2 Empower prosecutorial services with adequate training, resources, and independence to conduct thorough investigations.
3 Ensure prosecutorial discretion is exercised with diligence; cases should not be rushed to court before investigations are complete.
4 Prioritize funding for forensic tools, investigative training, and cross-institutional coordination.

D. Judicial Security and Welfare
1 Enhance the physical, psychological, and professional security of judicial officers.
2 Promote a culture of respect for judicial service, on par with protections afforded to executive and legislative officials.

E. Ethics, Transparency, and Peer Review
1 Institutionalize transparent integrity mechanisms, such as regular performance reviews, asset declarations, and disciplinary oversight.
2 Encourage appellate scrutiny and intra-judicial peer review as vital tools of quality assurance.
3 Promote the development of in-house law reporting systems at court levels to foster institutional memory and professional benchmarking.

F. Restatement of Adversarial Principles
1 Courts and bar associations must periodically restate and reaffirm the values and structure of adversarial justice.
2 Legal conferences and bar forums should prioritize bridge-building between the Bench, the Bar, and the public, rather than focusing solely on abstract doctrinal debates.

5. Conclusion: A Call for Restraint, Responsibility, and Reform
The adversarial system, while imperfect, is anchored in principles of fairness, equal opportunity, and procedural justice. If these principles are to survive, society must accept the judiciary’s role as defined by law—not by emotion or political convenience. Neutrality must not be punished. Impartiality must not be equated with complicity.

Judicial officers are not crusaders, nor are they adversaries; they are stewards of the law. To protect them is to protect the legal system itself. The judiciary must be insulated from distortion, its officers defended from undue attack, and its supporting institutions reformed to ensure efficacy, fairness, and public trust.

Only then can we save not just the soul of the legal system—but also the dignity of those entrusted to preserve it.

Author’s Note: This essay is informed by a commitment to the adversarial tradition and seeks to stimulate institutional introspection
and reform. All recommendations are proposed in the spirit of constructive engagement and legal renewal.

• Sam Kargbo is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. He writes from Abuja.

____________________________________________________________________

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.