Rash of Conflicting Court Orders

Nigeria’s Judiciary is Far from Being Independent

Joseph Otteh shares the concerns of Access to Justice, not just about courts of coordinate jurisdiction issuing conflicting court orders, especially in political cases, but about the Chief Justice of Nigeria summoning the Chief Judges of the States, some of whose Judges have been involved in this condemnable and unwholesome practice, as opposed to summoning the erring Judges themselves

I n the last couple of days, courts of coordinate jurisdiction, have, in a number of political cases, been issuing a number of conflicting and counteracting interim orders, directing political party officers either to vacate, or resume office and also ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise one political aspirant or the other as a party’s flag-bearer for forthcoming elections. Most of the courts issuing these interim orders are quite remote, geographically, to the places where the disputes arose.

There are therefore, reasonable prospects of an escalation in the incidence of courts making cross-orders among themselves over political disputes, and interfering with the integrity of the electoral process. This is of serious concern to Nigeria’s democracy. As a background, the Nigerian Judiciary has had a remarkably disreputable history, with making orders that destabilise political processes and outcomes, and causing major upheavals.

In response to these developments, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, has summoned the Chief Judges of six States (Rivers, Kebbi, Cross River, Anambra, Jigawa and Imo States) as, according to the CJN’s media aide Aharuka Isah: “a prelude to the broader probe by the NJC, to explain what warranted issuance of conflicting orders by courts of coordinate jurisdiction in their domains”.

Access to Justice’s Concerns

Access to Justice is pleased to note that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (“CJN”) has taken proactive steps to address an insidious and portentous threat to constitutional democracy, and has not followed a laid-back and reactive complaint system favoured by the National Judicial Council’s disciplinary system before interrogating the actions of the implicated Judges who have made the conflicting orders.

However, Access to Justice is concerned that the CJN would summon Chief Judges of States, over actions performed by individual Judges of their respective courts. This is because the Judiciary is an independent branch of Government, and Judges too, are decisionally independent of one another, and are not accountable to their Chief Judges for decisions they give, or orders they make.

To summon Chief Judges over the actions of individual Judges of their courts infringes on the concept of judicial independence and autonomy, and promotes the false notion that Judges are individually accountable to the Chief Judges; it would also foster the idea that Chief Judges can make broad policies on ways cases should be decided, or orders which Judges can give in certain cases, on the ground that the Chief Judge would be held to account if individual Judges do not live up to particular standards. The CJN as Chairman of the National Judicial Council – not as Chief Justice of Nigeria – may interrogate the question whether orders made by specific Judges satisfy the judicial standards and criteria required before such orders are made, but that inquiry must occur with the affected Judges themselves.

It is unfortunate that Nigeria’s Judiciary, after several years of trying to straighten itself out, and in spite of its dishonourable history with using the judicial platform to engage in proxy political warfare, is still grappling with the same issues in 2021, even well before the 2023 transitional elections get underway. This is further evidence that all is not well with the Judiciary, notwithstanding efforts to whitewash its image; and that it will require far more efforts and greater commitment, to truly transform it into a dependable institution and vehicle of justice in Nigeria.

Joseph Otteh, Executive Director of Access to Justice