Abstract

This paper examines the strategies for the legitimisation of power in courtroom encounters. It focuses on how discourse becomes the instrument for power and control during the judicial process of witness examination in a Nigerian courtroom context. Legitimisation, as used in this study, therefore, provides more insight into how language use within an institutionalised setting becomes the locus of social interactions designed to achieve specific social goals. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was adopted as the theoretical framework to undergird the description and discussion of the data. The data for this study was drawn from the proceedings of two regional Election Petition Tribunals in South-western and North-eastern Nigeria in 2007 and 2011 respectively. The legal contexts provide the adversarial space for the use of discourse as power and control. The findings reveal that various legitimisation strategies such as confrontational move, circumlocution and pleading forgetfulness along with such traditional strategies as authorisation, moralisation and rationalisation are deployed by the discourse participants to legitimise and delegitimise power in this institutional setting. The paper shows that language is crucial in the judicial process and should be carefully handled so that litigants can have sufficient confidence in the process and be reassured of effective resolution to their legal matters.