Reactions have continued to trail the use of Latin maxims by judges in delivering judgments in cases before them. Prominent among such Latin maxims is status quo, status quo ante bellum. The reactions are premised on the judgment in the legal leadership disputes in the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A couple of judges had asked the party to maintain the status quo ante bellum. The maxim has, however, been given different meanings by different people. However, lawyers have raised different issues on its usage. The President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), while wading into the matter, during a televised interview, urged Nigerian courts to stop using complex Latin maxims and phrases in judgments and orders.
Osigwe had made the call while reacting to the controversies generated by the interpretation of various court decisions by litigants, particularly politicians, who in recent times have been giving divergent interpretations to the rulings to favour their positions.
Lawyers speak
Those who spoke with our correspondents on the issue include a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Joe Kyari Gadzama; a university don and human rights activist, Dr. Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi; and a senior lawyer, Mr. Taiwo Fadahunsi. Other lawyers who spoke with the Saturday Telegraph are Dr Bosun Adetona, Onesimus Ruya, Bright Onyeka, Dauda Ba-Adans, and Emeka Okorie.
Others include a journalist turned lawyer, Mr. Richard Akinnola; a Constitutional Lawyer/Human Rights Advocate, Chief Nkereuwem Udofia Akpan; a former President of the Igbo Think Tank group, Aka Ikenga, Chief Goddy Uwazurike; and a Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Ajose Abejoye. Those who spoke with the Saturday Telegraph expressed varying opinions.
While some wanted Latin maxims jettisoned, others called for clarity in such a way that there would be ambiguity or interpretative confusion regarding judgments. Those who spoke with our correspondents include a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Joe Kyari Gadzama; a university don and human rights activist, Dr. Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi; and a senior lawyer, Mr. Taiwo Fadahunsi.
Other lawyers who spoke with the Saturday Telegraph are Dr Bosun Adetona, Onesimus Ruya, Bright Onyeka, Dauda Ba-Adans, and Emeka Okorie. Others include a journalist turned lawyer, Mr. Richard Akinnola; a Constitutional Lawyer/Human Rights Advocate, Chief Nkereuwem Udofia Akpan; a former President of the Igbo Think Tank group, Aka Ikenga, Chief Goddy Uwazurike; and a Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Ajose Abejoye.
Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN)
Commenting on the development, Kyari Gadzama called for restraint on the part of those making such calls but advocated for a kind of balance between tradition and modernity. “The question of whether our courts should abandon Latin maxims in favour of plain language touches upon the very essence of judicial communication, public trust, and the enduring legacy of our legal system.
“My view is that while the imperative for clarity is undeniable and indeed crucial for a modern judiciary, a judicious approach that respects both tradition and accessibility is paramount. “As regards the use of plain language, it is important to note that since the judiciary serves the public, its pronouncements must be comprehensible to those whose lives it directly impacts.
“The use of plain language in judicial decisions is beneficial, as it enhances access to justice. Litigants should not require a secondary interpreter to understand a decision that determines their rights and obligations. In addition, the use of plain language fosters transparency and public confidence,” he said.
According to him, the use of such a maxim also facilitates legal education and reduces the learning curve for new entrants to the bar, just as he added that Latin phrases without contextual explanation risk alienating the very public the courts are designed to serve. Kyari-Gadzama further added that “The use of Latin maxims is beneficial, as many Latin maxims are highly condensed expressions of complex and foundational legal doctrines, honed over centuries.
Latin maxims often carry settled meanings within the legal profession, ensuring uniformity in interpretation. Therefore, the most pragmatic and progressive path forward lies in a hybrid approach that champions intelligible precision over linguistic purism or outright abandonment. To him, “Strategic Retention of Maxims: Latin maxims should be retained where they offer unparalleled precision, encapsulate a well-established legal doctrine, or serve as essential legal shorthand among practitioners.
Akiyode-Afolabi
Akiyode-Afolabi, who teaches International Human Rights Law at the University of Lagos, stated that though the use of maxim has historical value and context is must be rendered in a manner that is properly understood by all and sundry. “I agree that the use of confusing Latin maxims in court rulings can create a barrier between the judiciary and the public it serves.
While maxims like status quo, status quo ante bellum, and fait accompli have historical and technical value within the legal profession, justice must not only be done but must also be seen and understood to be done. “Judgments written in plain, clear language promote transparency, public confidence, and better compliance with court orders.
Litigants, especially those without legal representation, should not need a law dictionary to understand the outcome of their case. “That said, some Latin phrases are terms of art with precise meanings that may not have exact English equivalents.
The balance, therefore, is to use plain language as the default, and where a technical term is necessary, to accompany it with a clear explanation in ordinary words,” she said. She further added that “The move toward plain-language rulings is a welcome development in deepening access to justice, and I commend the courts already adopting this approach.”
Dr. Bosun Adetona
Dr Adetona noted that “expressions like status quo ante and status quo ante bellum are part of the rich heritage of legal jurisprudence, but their overuse without proper explanation is increasingly problematic. These terms are meant to simplify complex ideas, yet in practice, they often end up confusing not just litigants but even some practitioners.
“The recent ruling on the David Mark-led ADC executive clearly demonstrates this problem. The distinction between the two Latin maxims is not merely semantic; it goes to the heart of what the court intended to preserve. Unfortunately, where the court does not expressly clarify its usage, the result is multiple interpretations.
“Judgments are not academic treatises; they are instruments of justice meant to be understood by all parties involved. When the language of the court becomes inaccessible, it undermines confidence in the judicial process. “I believe strongly that clarity must take precedence over tradition.
Latin maxims should not be abandoned entirely, but they must always be accompanied by clear, plain-English explanations that leave no room for doubt. “At the end of the day, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be understood. Any language that obscures that goal, no matter how historically significant, should be reconsidered.”
Onesimus Ruya
In his own reaction, Ruya opined that the continued heavy reliance on Latin maxims by judges is an outdated practice that no longer serves the needs of a modern legal system. “The law should evolve with society, and communication is central to that evolution. The confusion surrounding status quo ante and status quo ante bellum in the ADC matter shows just how disconnected judicial language can be from public understanding.
Even lawyers sometimes struggle with these distinctions, so one can only imagine the confusion among ordinary citizens. “The primary purpose of a judgment is to communicate a decision clearly. It is not an opportunity to display linguistic sophistication or adherence to tradition at the expense of clarity. “There is also the risk of misapplication.
Judges may deploy these maxims without fully engaging with their nuanced meanings, leading to inconsistencies in interpretation and enforcement. “There should be a shift toward plain English in judicial writing. The law belongs to the people, and its language should be accessible to them without requiring specialised knowledge of Latin.”
Bright Onyeka
Onyeka, in his analysis of the issue, stated that Latin maxims are an integral part of the legal tradition, and they have endured because they convey complex legal principles with remarkable precision. “To discard them entirely would be to lose a valuable tool of legal expression. The issue, however, is not the use of Latin itself but the manner in which it is used.
The confusion arising from the ADC ruling is, in my view, a result of inadequate explanation rather than any inherent flaw in the maxims. “Status quo ante and status quo ante bellum have well-established meanings within legal jurisprudence. When properly applied and explained, they should not create any ambiguity.
“That said, judges must recognise that their audience extends beyond the legal community. It is therefore essential to accompany Latin expressions with clear explanations in plain language. “A balanced approach is necessary. We must preserve the precision of legal language while ensuring that judgments remain accessible and understandable to all.”
Dauda Ba-Adans
In his own submission, Ba-Adans said that the practical consequences of ambiguous judicial language cannot be overstated, especially in politically sensitive matters like the ADC leadership dispute. He said: Words matter, and when they are not clearly understood, they can create chaos. The debate over status quo ante and status quo ante bellum is a perfect example.
Different parties have interpreted the same ruling in entirely different ways, each claiming that the court’s decision supports their position. “This kind of confusion undermines the authority of the judiciary and can escalate tensions in an already volatile political environment. The court’s role is to resolve disputes, not to create new ones through unclear language.
“In today’s media-driven environment, judgments are no longer confined to legal circles. They are analysed, debated, and sometimes distorted in the public space, making clarity even more critical. “I believe judges must prioritise unambiguous communication. If Latin maxims are used, they should be thoroughly explained to eliminate any possibility of misinterpretation.”
Emeka Okorie
For Okorie, Latin maxims are deeply embedded in the history of common law, and they serve as important tools for articulating legal principles. He, however, said their continued use must be justified by their relevance in contemporary practice. “The confusion arising from the use of status quo ante and status quo ante bellum in the ADC case suggests that we may need to rethink how these expressions are deployed in judicial decisions.
“The law is ultimately about resolving disputes, and any language that becomes a source of further disagreement defeats that purpose. Clarity should always be the guiding principle. “Legal education must also adapt. Lawyers and judges should not only understand Latin maxims but also be skilled in translating them into clear and accessible language.
“In my view, the way forward is not to abandon Latin entirely but to use it more judiciously. Where it adds value, it should be retained; where it creates confusion, it should give way to plain and precise language.”
Akpan
In his submissions, Akpan absolved the judiciary of unbridled ambiguity in its judgments and pronouncements, but that “the issue has always been whether parties are ready to comply with the express and ordinary meanings of the words used in the Orders when they’re not favourable to them.
The legal practitioner particularly singled out government agencies, especially their legal departments, for wanton disobedience of court decisions. “Ordinary citizens don’t dispute clear outcomes of trials, except when going on appeal, but government agencies and the legal departments are the ones likely to spin the narrative to disobey clear orders emanating from courts of competent jurisdiction.
“Ultimately, it’s not about ambiguity or exotic Latinic maxims coming to play; it’s rather a culture of impunity endorsed from the very top that trickles down to the grassroots and has permeated every fabric of the Nigerian state. “I’m not surprised that politicians have joined the fray.
That means that they’re being goaded on by their legal teams on both sides of the divide “No lawyer worth his salt can walk away from a courtroom pretending not to know the purport or intendment of an order made by the court unless those agent provocateurs seek to create disputes where there are none and smile to the Bank. I personally see nothing wrong in the use of age long Latinic maxims to embellish our court orders.”
Uwazurike
On his part, Uwazurike dismissed the suggestion, saying that Latin as a language has continued to remain the bedrock and foundation of the legal profession, which must not be jettisoned by anyone. “There is nothing wrong with the use of the Latin language in the law profession. Latin is an ancient language with only one country, the Vatican City, still using it as the official language.
“Latin is the foundation of learning from time immemorial, side by side with Greek. Most in-depth studies have Latin expressions that, in a few words, encompass large English, French, and German summaries. “As a matter of fact, Latin is the bedrock of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and other European languages.
Today, a judicial academic work without Latin expressions is naked. Latin is still a WAEC subject till today. I studied Latin in the seminary up to WAEC and found it useful in my law classes! Latin is the language of the Learned and the Noble professions.”
Fadahunsi
Fadahunsi, on his part, stated that the use of Latin as a form of legal expression has become so fundamental, as it gives any judgment and ruling the weight it deserves. “The Latin maxim is fundamental, and with a good judge like the late Justice Oputa, it gives the judgment the weight it deserves. Doctors and pharmacists have it in their practice.
Richard Akinnola
Akinnola also toed the same line with Fadahunsi, arguing that “Latin terminology is part of the English Common Law system we imbibed. It’s difficult to jettison. Do people understand all the medical jargon that doctors use to describe various ailments? Have people called for doctors to discontinue such medical lexicon?”
