As Judiciary Struggles with Negative Perception in 2025…

Efforts by the judiciary to earn respect and trust of the Nigerian citizens and even the international community continues to suffer setbacks with the delivery of some judgments that seems out of tune with justice, writes Alex Enumah.

Although, year 2025 was not an election year; where the courts are fast becoming the decider of political office holders rather than the electorates, the nation’s judiciary however, continues to receive the bashing from all quarters owing to some of its judgments delivered recently.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria, is not just the final court in the country, but a court whose judgments can shape policies and legal directions of both the executive and legislative arms of government.

Little wonder the judiciary prides itself not just as the “last hope of the common man”, but also the pillar of democracy. In a welcome at its official website, the Supreme Court claims that as the guardian of the Constitution and the final arbiter in all legal disputes in the country, it plays a pivotal role in upholding the rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring justice for all.

However, some of the apex court’s decisions in 2025, especially political cases has left many Nigerians just as confused and hopeless us most election cases in the past. In 2024, the apex court was applauded when it ruled in favour of local government autonomy, given hope that development would begin to take place at the grassroots. But, few months later, in February 2025, the apex court set aside two judgments of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier nullified judgments ordering for the withholding of funds due to Rivers State as well as the stoppage of the conduct of local government elections in the state, over dispute between a faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the state executive.

At the heart of the Rivers dispute is the issue of defection by 27 members of the assembly said to be loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), NyesomWike.

While the apex court is yet to decide whether the Martins Amaewhule-led faction actually defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) that sponsored them to office and whether they can continue to remain in office after defecting, the silence of the apex court on this matter arguably is responsible for the current gale of defection both at the state and federal levels, as there seems to be no consequences for defecting. Kudos to the Supreme Court that Nigeria is fast becoming a one-party state.

Similarly, the decision of the apex court to affirm the seizure of monthly allocations due to Rivers State, also arguably laid the foundation for the creation of a ‘State of Emergency’ in March this year. Recall that President Tinubu in declaring the state of emergency had made reference to the judgment of the apex court in respect of breakdown of law and order in the state.

In invoking Section 305 of the Constitution, Tinubu went ahead to suspend the Governor, SiminalayiFubara, his deputy and the entire house of assembly for six months and appointed a sole administrator to run the state during the period.

The suspension of elected public officials sparked condemnation and was followed by a legal action at the apex court by governors of the PDP states. The judgment of the apex court besides turning out to be a mere academic exercise, as it was delivered over two months after the expiration of the emergency rule, created more confusion as it appeared to give backings to the president to suspend an elected state governor alongside the state assembly. Till date, most senior lawyers declined to comment on the judgment, waiting to see a certified true copy of the original judgment.

Besides the Rivers matters, the apex court’s judgment in the Osun State witheld local government funds and the PDP leadership issue were other verdicts which instead of growing the country’s democracy has further stunted its growth and continues to encourage impunity.

Osun State Government had through its Attorney-General (AG) and Commissioner for Justice, dragged the federal government to the apex court, challenging the decision of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) to withheld funds belonging to the state’s LGAs and directing same to be paid into a special account for the benefit of the alleged sacked chairmen and councillors of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The plaintiff, in the suit marked: SC/CV/773, had sought for an order of the apex court directing the AGF to immediately release the statutory allocations to chairmen and councilors validly elected for the 30 Local Government Areas of the Osun State. Plaintiff had also sought for another order barring the AGF from further withholding, suspending or seizing monthly allocations and revenues standing to the credit of the constituents LGs, having democratically elected chairmen and councillors in place.

Delivering judgment early December, the apex court in a split decision of six-to-one dismissed the case of the plaintiff on grounds of jurisdiction. It however, came down heavily on the federal government for disobeying the apex court’s judgment on LG autonomy. In ruling in the preliminary objection brought by the federal government, the majority judgment observed that contrary to the claim of the federal government, the defendant’s “hands are not clean” because they have been soiled by the decision to unjustly withhold the funds of the state LGAs.

Although, the apex court struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction, Justice Mohammed Idris, who delivered the lead judgment took the opportunity to “issue a stern admonition to the federal government”, noting that the federal government erred by refusing to release to the 30 LGAs the funds belonging to them. Idris pointed out that it was imperative as the executive arm of government that the federal government put all machineries in place to ensure that funds due to the LGAs directly gets to them.

The apex court while reminding the federal government that it is bound to release in full all LG fund throughout the federation to all LGAs nationwide, held that failure to do so amounts to disobedience to rule of law.

The minority judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel AkomayeAgim pointed out that allowing the federal government to withhold funds due to LGAs would not only crippled activities at the LGAs but, also cripple governance in the entire state.

“Refusal to release the funds is a clear misuse of power by the defendant and it is a clear disobedience to the court’s order that funds should be paid only to a democratically elected governments”, Agim said.

In the PDP leadership matter, the position of the apex court that leadership tussles are outside the jurisdiction of courts have continued to work adversely especially when the trial and appellate courts have assumed jurisdiction and taking decisions in one way or another; all to the detriment of PDP and democracy in Nigeria.

Recall that the apex court had in March, 2025, nullified the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Federal High Court, which sacked Senator Samuel Anyanwu as National Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), on the grounds that the issue was an internal affair of the party of which the courts ought not to have entertained in the first place. This decision of the apex court arguably is responsible for the leadership crisis in the PDP, which is capable of denying not only the PDP the opportunity to field candidates in the off-circle and general elections but, limiting the choices available to the electorates. It should be pointed out that a similar position held by the apex court last year in the case of the Labour Party (LP) has also jeopardized the chances of the LP and choice of voters in coming elections.

Taking into consideration the enormous challenge facing her leadership of the judiciary, especially as Nigeria is approaching another election year, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, (CJN) Justice KudiratKekere-Ekun, challenged judges to handle election-related disputes with discipline, consistency, and strict adherence to constitutional and statutory timelines. Speaking at the opening of the 2025/2026 Legal Year of the Federal High Court, Nigeria and its 41st Annual Judges’ Conference, the CJN stated that Nigerians are looking to the courts for clarity and balance at such critical moments.

“This Court has a crucial role to play in pre-election dispute resolution. Conflicting interim orders, forum shopping, and the abuse of ex parte processes undermine the credibility of the entire justice system and weaken public confidence”, the CJN said.

She therefore urged Heads of Divisions of the Federal High Court to enforce procedural discipline firmly and fairly, adding that the judiciary “must never be perceived as a theatre for political gamesmanship” but, “must remain a sanctuary of constitutional order”.

The CJN who doubles as the chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC) assured that the council would continue to strengthen oversight of case progression, not as a tool of intimidation, but to support institutional discipline and improve justice delivery.

While assuring that judicial welfare, security and wellbeing would continue to be critical priorities, Kekere-Ekun noted that a judiciary that is bold, independent and impartial must also be adequately protected and equipped. She said, “a judge who does not feel secure cannot dispense justice with confidence”.

Speaking on public perception, the CJN said it would be unrealistic to ignore the fragility of public confidence in judicial institutions, especially given the strategic and sensitive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. “Restoring confidence is not achieved by rhetoric, but by reliability, professionalism and visible order in the administration of justice,” she said.

Speaking earlier in September this year, Kekere-Ekun disclosed that the judiciary under her watch is vigorously pursuing a more efficient, accessible, and just legal system, adding that the judiciary in the last one year have diligently worked to uphold the principles of the constitution and the rule of law as well as ensuring that justice is dispensed fairly and without fear or favour.

“Since the start of the last legal year, we have been making tremendous efforts to restore public confidence in the Nigerian Judiciary, adding that, “At the National Judicial Council (NJC), every pending petition against judicial officers was carefully reviewed, with appropriate sanctions imposed on those found wanting”.

Kekere-Ekun who noted that “cleansing the Augean stables” is a collective duty, stated that the leadership remains committed to the task. The chairman of the NJC also disclosed that members of the Bar who have been found wanting have been referred to the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for appropriate disciplinary action.

Recall that the NJC as part of efforts at instilling discipline and ridding the bench of corruption had in June this year placed 10 judges on compulsory retirement.

While nine of the affected judges were of the Imo State Judiciary, found guilty of altering “their dates of birth in their official records in order to confer on themselves the undue advantage of staying longer in service”, the remaining one, “Justice T. N. Nzeukwu was found to have made himself available to be sworn in as acting Chief Judge of Imo State High Court knowing fully well that he was number four in the hierarchy of Judges of the Imo State Judiciary and contrary to Section 271 (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended”.

Besides those recommended for retirement, the NJC in same June this year placed promotion ban on a Judge of the National Industrial Court, due to misconduct, and issued warning/caution to five other judges. But, Nigerians would be more interested in actions against judges who assume jurisdiction especially in matters that the apex court would not entertain because of lack of jurisdiction. Judges who also encouraged forum shopping or issue conflicting orders should not be spared.

Only few days ago, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) came out to say it would not recognize the newly elected national executive of the PDP, based on a court order. Recall that while the Federal High Court, Abuja had in two separate decisions restrained INEC from monitoring, and or recognizing the outcome of the PDP convention which held in Ibadan last October, a High Court in Ibadan had ordered INEC to monitor and give recognition to the convention. The question now is what informed INEC’s decision to obey one decision of the court and disregard the order of another court. Until this issue of conflicting orders are resolved through the disciplining of erring judges, the court will continue to be in the negative books of most Nigerians.

Closely related to the issue of conflicting court orders is the issue of bias allegations against some judges, which the judiciary must demonstrate reasonable concerns as election approaches. Recall that the PDP had on November 19, written the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, asking that cases involving the PDP should not be assigned to three judges at the Abuja division following alleged bias. Currently, there are 12 judges at the Abuja division and one can assume that the remaining nine justices are as competent as the ones being protested against.

In the area of appointments, the NJC in what was adjudged a ground breaking policy towards enhancing transparency and accountability, published the names of 80 persons recommended for appointment as judicial officers as well as two others for the position of Head of Court. The move according to the NJC was to solicit comments from the general public “regarding the integrity, reputation and suitability of the candidates as judicial officers”. The NJC added that by opening the process to public scrutiny it hoped to gather valuable insight that will inform its final decisions and ensure that only the most qualified and candidates with impeccable character are appointed to the bench.

This input no doubt led in the appointment of 21 candidates out of the 82 shortlisted, in June this year.

In the area of tackling delay, results are evident through the number of cases handled in the 2024/2025 legal year. According to the CJN, “the Supreme Court considered a total of 2,280 matters, including 560 appeals and 1,720 motions and delivered 369 judgments, up from 247 in the previous year, marking a 49 percent increase. This improvement is the outcome of deliberate measures including innovative case management and enhanced judicial capacity”.

Meanwhile, she attributed the success in the area of speedy trial to the computerization of court processes, adding that upon assumption of office as the Acting Chief Justice in August 2024, a Special Committee was constituted to recommend wide-ranging innovations to restructure and sanitize the Litigation Department of the Supreme Court and make court processes more accessible and less cumbersome.

“Let me use this opportunity to place it on record that the current practice in the Supreme Court is that dates for hearing of appeals are given during court proceedings, either in open court upon adjournment, or based on a motion filed by parties, which may, where necessary, be considered in chambers. This procedure eliminates third-party interference that previously facilitated sharp practices.

“A robust tracking system now monitors file movement, virtually eradicating file losses. Additional reforms include: Digitization of Receiving and Data Entry Units, and a reorganization of the Registry to promote transparency; digitization of Exhibits and Judgments Pasting Unit for the preservation of judicial records and enabling easy retrieval of past judgments; creation of a Disposal Unit to archive concluded cases and transfer them to the National Archives”, she added.

The CJN also noted that beyond technology and process reforms, her leadership have prioritized staff welfare with the introduction of various incentives to boost morale and reinforce commitment to institutional goals. According to her, salaries and allowances are paid promptly, and all existing welfare packages have been increased.

However, the nature and quality of judgments from the apex court, down to the trial court, would continue to be a dent on the judiciary’s image, and growth of democracy, until the court rids itself of corruption and begins to deliver judgments without fear or favour.