By Iliyasu Haruna Bala
How the introduction of verbatim technology at the Federal High Court, Abuja, is changing the pace of proceedings and forcing court reporters to rethink how they listen, write and tell the story.
There was a time when covering court proceedings in Nigeria was largely a contest between the journalist, his jotter and his ability to listen. You sat in court, pen in hand, trying to follow every argument, every ruling, every question from the bench and every response from counsel. If you were experienced enough, you developed a system of writing that allowed you to reconstruct virtually everything that happened in court, even hours after the proceedings had ended.
For me, that was part of what made court reporting interesting. My reports were often long because I could capture arguments with considerable precision, sometimes almost verbatim. I particularly enjoyed quoting strong legal arguments because it allowed readers to appreciate not just the final decision of the court, but the arguments, counter-arguments and intellectual contest that preceded it. Listening to senior lawyers such as Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, J.B. Daudu, SAN, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, and Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, among many others, meant that there was often a lot to capture. Their submissions could be detailed, technical and fast, but there was always something in them that helped explain why a case was heading in a particular direction.
Then something changed.
I noticed it while covering proceedings before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The proceedings suddenly appeared to be moving much faster than I was accustomed to. At first, I could not understand why. I looked around the courtroom and eventually looked at the screen. That was when I realised that a verbatim machine was being used to capture the proceedings.
The technology is changing the way proceedings are recorded. Instead of depending entirely on the traditional process of manually recording proceedings in longhand, the court can now use technology to capture proceedings verbatim. At the end of the process, a transcript can be produced from that record. The effect is significant: proceedings can move faster, and hearings that might previously have taken considerably more time can progress at a much quicker pace.
But there is an interesting irony here. While the technology has made the work of the court better and faster, it has made the work of the court reporter considerably harder.
In Justice Omotosho’s courtroom, sitting starts at exactly 9am, and proceedings can continue until the judge decides to stop for the day and attend to other cases. The speed is not solely because of the machine. It is also a reflection of the judge’s commitment to moving cases forward. But when technology and a fast-paced courtroom come together, the journalist sitting at the back has very little room for error.
Once you miss an important submission, a figure, a date, a question or a response, you are gone. You cannot simply ask the court to repeat everything because you were trying to catch up with your notes.
This is particularly challenging in high-profile cases where witnesses may spend considerable time explaining transactions involving huge sums of money, including inflows and outflows through bank accounts, dates, beneficiaries and specific amounts. A reporter must listen, understand, identify what is important and write quickly enough to keep up with the proceedings. It is no longer enough to simply have a good pen and a good memory.
Of course, a journalist can apply for a Certified True Copy of the proceedings. Journalists are not excluded from that process. But that does not solve the immediate problem. The CTC ordinarily comes after the day’s proceedings, has to go through the necessary process, is signed and paid for. A journalist covering a major case cannot afford to wait for all of that before filing a report. In most cases, the report is expected almost immediately.
That is why, after proceedings, I sometimes speak with counsel in an interview format to clarify certain issues or get additional explanations. It helps, but it is not something every counsel will necessarily agree to, and it cannot replace what a reporter should have captured in the courtroom.
This raises a bigger question about the future of court reporting. If the courtroom is becoming faster, can the journalist afford to remain the same?
My answer is no.
The court reporter must upgrade. Shorthand becomes even more important. Accuracy must be non-negotiable. Attentiveness, balance and fairness must remain at the centre of the job. A reporter must also develop a working understanding of the law because you cannot accurately explain proceedings that you do not understand. Technology should be embraced where it is permitted and useful, and journalists must learn how to use available tools without compromising the principles of journalism.
There is also a legitimate conversation to be had about how technology can be made to work better for court reporting. Rather than relying on assumptions about how other countries operate, Nigeria can examine controlled technological access for accredited court reporters, where appropriate and subject to judicial approval and safeguards. The objective should not be to compromise the sanctity of the courtroom, but to improve accuracy and public understanding of proceedings.
Because the court reporter is not a court official. The reporter represents the public.
Millions of Nigerians, and indeed people outside Nigeria, cannot sit inside a courtroom to listen to a case. They depend on the journalist to explain what happened, what was argued, what the judge said and why a particular development matters. That makes court reporting more than the transcription of proceedings. It is the communication of justice to people who were not there to witness it.
And this is where I believe we must draw the line between the machine and the reporter.
The machine can preserve the proceedings. It can capture words with remarkable precision. It can help the court move faster and make the record more accessible. But it cannot replace the journalist’s responsibility to understand the significance of what happened and communicate it accurately to the public.
Technology will continue to change the courtroom. It will change the way proceedings are recorded, the speed at which cases move and, inevitably, the demands placed on those who cover them.
The choice before court reporters is therefore simple: adapt or be left behind.
The machine may record what happened in the courtroom. But someone still has to tell the world what happened there.
Iliyasu Haruna Bala, ANIPR, Public Affairs and Strategic Communications Professional. writes from Jabi, Abuja.