EXPLORING THE COMPLEXITIES OF LAW AND JUSTICE: LAW SOMETIMES OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE.

PRINCESS OSO.

Adekunle Ajasin University.

Abstract

Law and justice are often seen as inseparable, yet they are distinct concepts that do not always align. Law refers to enforceable rules governing society, while justice has to do with fairness and equity. Although law is meant to achieve justice, rigid procedures, misinterpretation, outdated statutes, and economic barriers often hinder this purpose. This article explores the tension between law and justice by examining different legal theories, judicial interpretations, and practical realities. It argues that while law serves as the framework for justice, it may also obstruct it when applied without sensitivity to context or morality. Drawing from jurisprudence, case law, and recent developments, this paper suggests reforms and pro bono access as ways to strengthen the connection between law and justice in modern society.

Introduction

Law and justice are two words often spoken in the same breath, yet they are not synonymous. The law is essentially a body of rules enacted and enforced by a sovereign authority, while justice is the moral compass that evaluates whether those rules produce fairness. Ideally, the two should work hand-in-hand, but in reality, it might not work that way. There are many moments when law, in its rigidity, obstructs justice rather than upholding it as it should be. This paper interrogates that tension by drawing from jurisprudential theories, judicial practice, and modern challenges.

The Legal Framework: Competing Theories of Law and Justice

Scholars have long debated the meaning of law. This birthed the theories of law as would now be considered. Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory views law as a system of binding norms deriving authority from a grundnorm. John Austin’s positivist theory defines law as the command of a sovereign backed by sanctions. On the other hand, natural law theorists like Aquinas argue that any law inconsistent with morality is no law at all, as expressed in the maxim lex iniusta non est lex, which literally means “an unjust law is no law at all.”Eugene Ehrlich’s sociological theory emphasizes that law and society influence each other.

HLA Hart modernised positivism by introducing the distinction between primary rules (imposing duties) and secondary rules (conferring powers). Ronald Dworkin, by contrast, criticised positivism and insisted that principles, not just rules, form part of law, so judges must interpret law in its “best light” to secure justice. These theories illustrate that while law provides structure, justice is the higher goal. Yet, in actual practice, states often prioritise obedience to enacted rules over the fairness those rules produce. This has sometimes led to the miscarriage of justice, affecting lives in general.

Judicial Interpretation and the Gap Between Law and Justice

Courts are the guardians of law, but judicial interpretation sometimes widens the gap between law and justice. For instance, in Riggs v Palmer (1889), the New York Court of Appeals held that a murderer could not inherit from his victim, even though the statute on wills was silent on the issue. The judges invoked principles of justice over the strict wording of the law. Similarly, in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Lord Atkin’s “neighbour principle” extended liability beyond the literal limits of prior case law to achieve fairness.

On the contrary, rigid adherence to precedent or outdated statutes often perpetuates injustice. Nigerian jurisprudence has examples too, such as technical dismissals of cases on procedural grounds without examining the merits. The Supreme Court has often reiterated that technicalities must not be allowed to defeat substantive justice, yet trial courts sometimes fall into that trap. In Nwosu v Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority, for example, the court struck out a claim on technical grounds, leaving the claimant without remedy despite the substantive injustice alleged.

When courts prioritise form and procedures over substance, law obstructs the very justice it was meant to deliver. This is not to say procedures are unimportant; they safeguard order  but substance too should not be neglected, as it is equally relevant.

Critical Analysis: Opportunities and Challenges

Law creates opportunities for justice by providing predictable standards and remedies. Without law, justice would be subjective and uncertain. Yet, challenges abound.

First, misinterpretation of statutes by courts or counsel often leads to injustice. For instance, where a statute explicitly states something but the counsel or court interprets it in another light, especially where it does not favour the defendant, it becomes misinterpreted, thereby causing more harm than good. Nigerian criminal law has examples, such as misapplication of provisions on bail or sentencing that result in prolonged pre-trial detention, contrary to constitutional guarantees of liberty.

Second, law can be misused by those in power, turning it into a weapon rather than a shield. This was evident during military regimes in Nigeria, where decrees ousted judicial review, leaving citizens without recourse. Even in modern democracies, governments sometimes invoke broadly worded security laws to silence dissent, undermining justice. For example, the use of the Terrorism Prevention Act in Nigeria has occasionally raised concerns about excessive executive discretion.

Third, the cost of litigation in Nigeria and elsewhere makes access to justice elusive for the poor,  hence the popular saying, “law is for the rich.” Filing fees, lawyer’s fees, and the long delays in courts create barriers to justice. The World Bank’s Doing Business reports consistently rank Nigeria low in “enforcing contracts,” showing that litigation is time-consuming and expensive.

Fourth, outdated laws that fail to reflect societal realities obstruct progress. For instance, colonial-era statutes still exist in Nigerian criminal law despite being disconnected from current values. The Criminal Code Act still retains offences like “wandering” under section 249, which many scholars argue criminalises poverty rather than wrongdoing. Similarly, same-sex relations remain criminalised under the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2014, despite growing calls for reform based on human rights principles.

These challenges show that law’s relationship with justice is fragile, requiring constant reform. If law is static while society evolves, injustice becomes inevitable.

Recent Developments and Suggestions for the Way Forward

There have been positive reforms aimed at reconciling law and justice. For example, Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 seeks to remove delays and technicalities in criminal trials, emphasising substantive justice.The Act prohibits unnecessary adjournments and ensures speedy trials, reflecting an attempt to balance law with justice.

The Legal Aid Council also promotes access to justice for indigent citizens, though underfunding remains a major obstacle. Beyond Nigeria, other jurisdictions have made reforms. For instance, the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with human rights, pushing judges to consider justice as well as legality. South Africa’s post-apartheid Constitution explicitly enshrines access to justice and equality, empowering courts to strike down unjust laws.

However, more must be done. Courts should adopt purposive interpretation over rigid literalism, as in Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya, where the Supreme Court stressed that courts are not slaves to technicalities but servants of justice. Legislatures must review and repeal outdated laws to align with present realities. More pro bono services and legal clinics should be encouraged to bridge the justice gap for the poor. Above all, legal education and judicial training should emphasise that law is a tool to achieve justice, not an end in itself.

Conclusion

Law and justice are interlinked but distinct. While law provides structure and order, justice ensures fairness and equity. The reality, however, is that law sometimes obstructs justice through misinterpretation, misuse, costliness, and outdated frameworks. The challenge is to make justice not law  the soul of legal systems.

Reforms in legislation, judicial interpretation, and access to legal services are crucial if the promise of justice is to be fulfilled. Ultimately, law should not be an obstacle but a bridge to justice, because a legal system that enforces rules without fairness loses its moral legitimacy.

Bibliography

Books

Austin J, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832).

Aquinas T, Summa Theologica (1265–1274).

Dicey AV, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885).

Dworkin R, Law’s Empire (Harvard University Press 1986).

Ehrlich E, Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law (Harvard University Press 1936).

Hart HLA, The Concept of Law (OUP 1961).

Kelsen H, Pure Theory of Law (University of California Press 1967).

Obilade AO, The Nigerian Legal System (Sweet & Maxwell 1979).

Cases

Riggs v Palmer (1889) 115 NY 506.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL).

Doherty v Doherty [1968] NMLR 241.

Nwosu v Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt 135) 688.

Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 109) 250.

Statutes

Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (Nigeria).

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

Legal Aid Council of Nigeria Act, Cap L9, LFN 2004.

Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2014 (Nigeria).

Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 (Nigeria).

Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.

Other Sources

Adebisi A, ‘Access to Justice in Nigeria: The Need for Reform’ (2014) 5(2) Nigerian Journal of Public Law 45.

Ocheje T, ‘Law and Social Change: A Socio-Legal Analysis of Nigeria’s Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act’ (2001) 45 Journal of African Law 173.

World Bank, Doing Business 2020: Enforcing Contracts (World Bank Group 2020).