A Critical Discourse Analysis of Courtroom Proceedings in Nigeria

Abstract

Critical Discourse Analysis is a theory that examines and analyzes power asymmetry in discourse. It primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. This paper applied this theory to legal discourse with the aim of exposing how the question-answer sequences of a direct and cross examination, turn-taking, objections, and other legal proceedings create unequal relationship among participants. It draws its motivation from the enormous works on legal discourse in western world that have brought radical changes in their justice system. The data of the study are audio recordings and personal observations of courtroom interactions; Supreme Court Quarterly Report 1990, from the High Court Library. From the data analysis, it was discovered that, evidentiary rules empower those who assume the examiner’s role by placing them in control of topic choice and direction, and giving them the means to constrain the contributions of others. It was also learned that the Judge wields the ultimate power and dominates in the court. Witnesses are powerless participants in legal discourse and are subjected to various forms of control by examiners. The study concluded that there is an unequivocally legitimized inequality in the courtroom which manifests through language and that language is the most powerful natural weapon used to effectuate justice in societies.

Key Words: Critical discourse analysis, courtroom, power, inequality, lawyers and Judges