Supreme Court’s Snail Speed to Justice

Davidson Iriekpen writes on how the Supreme Court delays certain cases that require accelerated hearing until the judgments on such cases lose relevance and become mere academic exercise

I

t is no longer news that one of the problems with the Nigerian judicial system is the delay in justice delivery. This often hinders access to justice and dampens public confidence.

The courts are often criticised for their inefficiency, with cases sometimes taking years, if not decades, to be resolved. This is in addition to inconsistencies in judicial decisions. 

This has eroded public confidence in the country’s judicial system. 

The delays have also crept into the Supreme Court, where cases that deserve accelerated hearing often drag on for years until the judgments become mere academic exercises.

For instance, five months have passed since some governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) dragged President Bola Tinubu to the Supreme Court over his suspension of Rivers State’s democratically elected officials under an emergency rule. The case is still pending on the court’s docket.

Tinubu had, on March 18, 2025, declared a state of emergency in the oil-rich state after suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all the House of Assembly members for an initial six months. 

The president consequently appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator of the state. He cited recent “disturbing” incidents, including the political crisis triggered by a rift between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, as the basis for his action.

On March 20, the House of Representatives approved the declaration of a state of emergency. The Senate would later follow suit.

A cross-section of civil society organisations (CSOs) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) condemned the emergency rule, describing it as an aberration against democracy. 

The PDP governors, who were convinced that the president’s action was unconstitutional, had, through their respective Attorneys-General, urged the apex court to declare that he “has no powers whatsoever” to suspend a democratically-elected governor and deputy governor of a state under the guise of proclamation of a state of emergency in any state of the federation.

In the suit, the plaintiffs equally argued that nothing in the constitutional provisions cited by Tinubu to impose a state of emergency in a state empowered him to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of the state.

Therefore, they urged the court to declare as illegal and unconstitutional the president’s suspension of Governor Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State Assembly under the guise of implementing an emergency rule. The plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to declare the action a gross violation of provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

The refusal of the Supreme Court to speedily determine the case necessitated some of the governors who defected from the PDP to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to apply to the court to withdraw from the matter.

If the case had been determined speedily, perhaps, Fubara would have been reinstated long ago instead of waiting for September 18, when the emergency rule would have been lifted. But till date, apart from all the documents filed before the court, nothing has been heard about the case.

Another case currently pending before the court is the Kano emirate crisis between Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II and Aminu Ado Bayero.

Tensions within the Kano Emirate have remained high following the state government’s reinstatement of Sanusi as the 16th Emir of Kano.

The reinstatement came after the review of the emirate law, which had created four additional emirates. The state government’s decision was challenged in court by Ado Bayero, who refused to relinquish his claim to the throne. 

When reports emerged recently that the crisis had taken a new turn, with Sanusi accusing supporters of Ado Bayero of attacking his palace and removing one of its gates, the question that naturally arose was: What is the Supreme Court waiting for before giving the appeal on the dispute an accelerated hearing? 

Since March, when the Court of Appeal in Abuja directed all parties in the emirship tussle to exercise caution pending the hearing of their appeals at the Supreme Court, nothing has been heard about the matter.

To many, it is surprising that the apex court is yet to hear appeals pending before it when, in truth, it will not take the court two sittings to hear and deliver judgment.  

Penultimate week, the Osun State Government again appealed to President Tinubu to release the state’s local government allocations withheld by the federal government following a petition by the state APC, for which it has since filed a suit at the Supreme Court.

According to a statement by the Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Mr. Kolapo Alimi, there is no legal or political basis for withholding the allocations, asserting that “before the law today, the elected chairmen and councillors that were produced based on the local government elections of February 22, 2025, are the official leadership of the local governments in Osun State.”

While the federal government is relying on the judgment of the apex court on local government autonomy, the Osun State government maintains that there is no judicial pronouncement halting the release of the withheld funds.

The cases listed above are straightforward matters that the court can dispense with immediately, but chose to delay them to the frustration of the complainants. 

In the United States, where President Donald Trump is daily unleashing a plethora of policies, the courts are sought after to swiftly checkmate him.

From January, when he assumed power, the US Supreme Court has swiftly delivered judgments at least three times on issues bordering on his policies, and giving Americans great relief.

This is not the case with Nigeria, where all cases filed against the federal government are still pending, with no hope of when they will be exhausted.

By January 2024, the Supreme Court had 21 justices, the maximum number stipulated by the 1999 Constitution. President Tinubu was hailed for appointing more justices to the court, something that Nigeria had not witnessed in over two decades.

Though only the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, has retired since then, leaving the court with 20 justices, nothing has changed, as cases and appeals are being delayed till they become an academic exercise.

Those who want to be blunt usually say that the greatest threat to democracy in Nigeria is the judiciary. This is because when they expect the courts to rise swiftly any time there is a threat to democracy, they are disappointed.

For democracy to endure, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done swiftly, timely, fairly, and without fear or favour.

No nation can thrive without an independent judiciary that is prompt, courageous, principled, and incorruptible.

The judiciary is not a passive institution meant to issue ex parte orders and retreat into silence; it is the backbone of democracy, the guardian of citizens’ rights, and the last line of defence against abuse of power.