Intertextuality in Judicial Reasoning of Selected High Court Judgments on Theft and Fraud Cases

Abstract

This study investigates how intertextuality functions as a discursive mechanism in judicial reasoning within selected Nigerian High Court judgements on theft and fraud cases. Although previous studies have established that legal discourse is inherently intertextual, this research extends beyond the identification of citations and references to examine how intertextual practices construct judicial authority, institutional legitimacy, and ideological coherence in criminal adjudication. The study is anchored in Norman Fairclough’s theory of intertextuality within the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which views judicial texts as products of interconnected legal and institutional discourses. A qualitative research design was adopted, using four purposively selected Nigerian High Court judgements obtained from the Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (2022 edition). The published and transcribed judgements were selected because they are authoritative legal documents that preserve the reasoning processes of the courts. The data were analysed through qualitative intertextual and discourse analysis. The analytical procedure involved identifying intertextual markers such as legal citations, direct quotations, paraphrases, legal maxims, reported speech, and interdiscursive references, followed by an examination of their linguistic, ideological, and institutional functions within judicial reasoning. The findings reveal that intertextuality in judicial discourse extends beyond textual referencing, as judges strategically deploy intertextual devices to justify legal interpretations, reinforce doctrinal continuity, maintain institutional authority, and reproduce dominant legal ideologies. The study contributes to legal discourse scholarship by providing a critical discourse-oriented understanding of intertextuality in Nigerian High Court judicial reasoning.