Nigeria’s Judiciary: A Stark Contrast Between Past and Present
When Nigeria transitioned to democratic rule in 1999, the judiciary was heralded as one of the nation’s pillars of integrity. Even in the face of a menacing military government, the courts played a crucial role in upholding justice, enforcing the rule of law to a large extent and safeguarding democratic values. However, 25 years into uninterrupted civilian governance, concerns have mounted over the seeming complocity of the judiciary, raising serious questions about its independence and credibility.
After almost two decades of consecutive military rule – bar Shoneskan’s “bump” – it was perhaps fitting that the last soldier who handed power to the civilians should be the one to usher the country into civil, democratic life after having lived for about the same time as a civilian himself – or at least a retired soldier.
Having just been rescued from the remote gulags in Yola before his ascent to power, Obasanjo threaded as softly as he could in his first term even though he couldn’t help but manifest some of his military traits after he dispatched soldiers to raze the commune in Odi, Southern Nigeria within months of his comeback.
After he manoeuvred out of an ambush to prevent him from contesting a second and final term, his administration presided over one of the worst elections in the country’s history in 2003. It was one of the worst because the next elections he presided over, four years later in 2007, still sits comfortably on the leader’s table as the worst.
It didn’t matter that it was his outgoing elections, the sheer brazenry of the impunity that happened propelled the exercise into the realms of his trailblazing economic achievements to hotly contest for the most important legacy of Olusegun Obasanjo’s presidency. After he consolidated power in the aftermath of political skimmings surrounding the 2003 polls, the former leader demonstrated emphatically what he could do – if there was no judiciary.
The Judiciary’s Golden Era
In the early years of Nigeria’s democratic transition, the judiciary demonstrated remarkable courage in delivering landmark rulings reaffirming its impartiality. Judges stood firm under political pressure, making decisions that reinforced democratic principles and protected citizens’ rights. The courts were viewed as an unbiased arbiter in electoral disputes, corruption cases, and constitutional interpretations.
During this period, judicial verdicts overturned electoral fraud, held government officials accountable, and checked executive overreach. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, in particular, won public trust by resisting political influence and ensuring justice prevailed.
The judiciary at the time was a thorn in the administration’s flesh, especially regarding electoral matters. To contextualise how effective the third arm of government was in being “the last hope of the common man”, not less than six state governors were removed from office after the courts boldly declared their elections null and void, often handing power to the rightful winner.
Perhaps the biggest beneficiary of judicial integrity then was Peter Obi, who relied on the Nigerian judiciary to return him to office twice lawfully.
Two years after the Uba brothers had” installed” Chris Ngige as the governor of Anambra State, the courts ruled that the Onitsha-born businessman was the rightful winner of the polls and was sworn in as governor. Two years from then, Obi again had to rely on the courts to regain power from one of the Uba brothers, Andy, who had somehow found himself in the government house after Obi declined to participate in the elections, believing his tenure in power had not expired, having assumed power two years before.
The courts agreed with him and kicked Andy Uba out 17 days after being “sworn in”, just before he had finished receiving the several entourages who had thronged Awka to congratulate him and before he could award any contract. Indeed, Obi’s faith in the judiciary motivated many other politicians to turn to it for justice, and the third arm of government demonstrated remarkable bravado and forthrightness even in an atmosphere of impunity.
Seeing Obi’s doggedness and the reward of his belief in the justice system, several other politicians who felt victimised by the pervasive electoral impunity approached the courts for justice, and the courts did not disappoint. It is solely because of the judiciary that politicians like Adams Oshiomole, Rotimi Amaechi, Olusegun Mimiko, Kayode Fayemi, and Rauf Aregbesola became governors, effectively leading to the off-cycle gubernatorial elections held in their states till today.
A Steady Decline: Political Influence and Corruption
In recent years, however, the judiciary has faced growing allegations of political interference, influence and corruption, eroding the public’s confidence in its rulings. Cases of judicial officers being influenced by powerful politicians and vested interests have surfaced, undermining the credibility of court decisions. Disturbing and often contradictory rulings and questionable legal interpretations have fueled suspicions that justice is increasingly being auctioned to the highest bidder.
The handling of electoral disputes has been a focal point of controversy. Instances of conflicting verdicts on election matters, judgments perceived as favouring ruling parties, and questionable disqualifications of candidates have raised concerns about the judiciary’s impartiality. The appointment process of judges has also come under scrutiny, with allegations that political loyalty rather than competence now dictate judicial promotions.
In stark contrast to its golden era of courageously removing politicians who illegally grabbed power, the judiciary, in what many have described as a bizarre ruling, removed the then-governor of Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha and replaced him with the ruling party’s candidate, Hope Uzodinma who had come a distant fourth in the polls ruling that the results from 388 polling units, which the APC candidate claimed were excluded from his vote had increased the candidate’s votes from the initially announced number of 96,458 votes to 309,753, surpassing Ihedioha’s tallied votes of 273,404.
However, as is the norm, the Supreme Court controversially failed to provide sufficient details of its computation of numbers and what votes other candidates who were on the ballot in the 388 polling units got; neither did it disclose how it arrived at the number of lawfully registered voters in those polling units.
In an even more bizarre case, the Supreme Court declared a candidate who didn’t participate in party primaries for a senatorial seat as the winner, as in the case of Machina vs Lawan in 2025. The decision was a massive disappointment for those who expected the justices to uphold the integrity of Section 115(d) of the Electoral Act, which prohibited any individual from signing a nomination paper or result form as a candidate in more than one constituency during the same election, as the former Senate President did, after he voluntarily withdrew to participate in the presidential primary held on June 8, 2022.
Many Nigerians, more so those in the legal profession, were indeed taken aback by the decision, especially as the Supreme Court, which had on several occasions cautioned the lower courts against sacrificing the merits of cases on the altar of technicalities to now rely on technicalities to arrive at its decision.
By the time Senator Lawan, who, as Senate President, repeatedly tried to interrupt his colleague and husband of the ex-President of the Court of Appeal, Senator Ahmed Bulkachuwa, from continuing with his confession of infringing on the “freedom and independence” of his wife as a judicial officer, whatever suspicions many had about the judiciary was confirmed and confidence vanished. As a parting shot to the Senate, having lost his re-election bid, the 83-year-old lawmaker said unambiguously that “his wife had been very tolerant and accepted my encroachment and extended her help to my colleagues.”
Impact on Democracy and Rule of Law
A compromised judiciary weakens democracy by eroding the principle of checks and balances. When judicial rulings become predictable based on political affiliations, citizens lose faith in the legal system, and impunity thrives, as it is already.
Corruption cases involving high-profile politicians and government officials often stall indefinitely or result in lenient verdicts, reinforcing the perception that the judiciary serves the interests of the elite rather than the ordinary people.
Furthermore, the diminishing independence of the judiciary undermines investor confidence in Nigeria’s legal environment. Business disputes become susceptible to manipulation, deterring both local and foreign investors from engaging in long-term economic commitments.
In a country where the police are hugely distrusted and perceived as a political tool in the hands of the executive, it will be a recipe for disaster if the judiciary is also captured as its being. Many have ascribed the idea of building residences for judicial officers and suddenly jacking up their wages by a massive 300% as a smokescreen to the real intent of pocketing the third arm. The fact that the two institutions joined forces in harassing lawyer Dele Farotimi in his defamation case is a piercing testament to how far we’ve come as a country.
The lack of a credible police and judiciary is akin to wildlife, and in the wild, chaos reigns. The appellation “my Lord” is reserved for the omnipotent, perfect Being; it is, therefore, incumbent on those who have earned the right to be addressed that way not to be perfect but at least live above board so politicians and criminals won’t have the effrontery to tell anyone whose ox is gored to “go to court!”.
The post Nigeria’s Judiciary: A Stark Contrast Between Past and Present first appeared on News Central TV | Latest Breaking News Across Africa, Daily News in Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Kenya and Egypt Today..