Group warns against personal attacks on judges, urges restraint

The Citizens for Good Governance, Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Initiative (C4G) has defended the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary amid growing public controversy surrounding a judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Deputy Director General, C4G, Malam Suleiman Musa, in a statement, said the organisation expressed concern over comments attributed to Kenneth Okonkwo, a prominent ADC figure, and Prof Chidi Odinkalu, concerning Justice Lifu and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho.

C4G maintained that disagreement with judicial decisions is legitimate in a constitutional democracy but should not degenerate into personal attacks, intimidation or attempts to undermine the institutional standing of judicial officers.

The controversy follows Justice Lifu’s judgment of November 5, in suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, concerning the emergence of the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC and the validity of consequential decisions and nominations made under that leadership.

According to C4G, the court examined how the party leadership emerged, and the legality of subsequent actions taken under that structure.

The judgment invalidated the processes in question and consequential nominations arising from them.

The organisation argued that political parties must operate within their constitutions and the applicable electoral laws, irrespective of the political influence or popularity of their leaders.

“Political parties are not private empires belonging to their most influential members. They are institutions governed by their constitutions and the laws of Nigeria. No political leader should assume that established procedures can be disregarded simply because a particular leadership enjoys political support”, Musa stated.

The organisation noted that decisions from courts of coordinate jurisdiction raise important questions about the application of the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and the limits of judicial jurisdiction.

It maintained, however, that the appellate process must resolve these questions, with proper consideration of the parties, issues, causes of action, and reliefs involved in the respective proceedings.

“The appellate courts are the appropriate institutions to resolve questions concerning the consistency, jurisdictional propriety and legal consequences of competing decisions. Political commentary cannot substitute for judicial determination,” the statement said.

Beyond the immediate ADC dispute, C4G raised concerns about the growing tendency to transform disagreements with judicial decisions into public campaigns against individual judges.

The organisation distinguished between legitimate criticism of judgments and disciplinary complaints against judicial officers and argued that allegations of judicial misconduct should be submitted through the National Judicial Council (NJC) ‘s established procedures, supported by specific particulars and evidence, rather than converted into media campaigns.

C4G observed that NJC’s complaint procedures are designed to preserve institutional fairness and ensure that allegations against judicial officers receive proper examination.

It particularly urged legal practitioners to exercise restraint when commenting on judicial decisions, arguing that professional training imposes a responsibility to distinguish legal disagreement from allegations of personal misconduct.

“A lawyer who considers a judgment legally defective should identify the error, cite the relevant authorities and pursue the appropriate appellate remedies”.

Personal denunciation is not a substitute for legal argument,” Musa said.

The group emphasised that judicial independence does not confer immunity from accountability, nor does judicial accountability permit subordinating judges to public pressure.

It noted that superior courts may affirm, vary or overturn judicial decisions, describing such appellate structure as an essential safeguard against errors in judicial interpretation and adjudication.

C4G further argued that the courts have a constitutional responsibility to protect the rights of minority members, aggrieved stakeholders and other legitimate participants within political parties, particularly where internal party structures become subjects of litigation.

It warned that allowing political influence or public sentiment to determine the legitimacy of judicial decisions could weaken confidence in the administration of justice.

The organisation called for strict compliance by political parties with their constitutions and applicable electoral laws.

It also urged the prompt determination of pending ADC appeals and related proceedings to reduce legal uncertainty ahead of the 2027 general elections.

C4G called on political actors to refrain from personal attacks and inflammatory statements against judicial officers while preserving their constitutional right to challenge judgments through lawful channels.

In its concluding remarks, the organisation stated that judicial independence and the right to appeal are complementary principles of constitutional democracy.

“The judiciary belongs to the Nigerian people, not to ADC, APC or any political organisation. Every political party has the right to challenge a judgment it considers defective, just as every judicial officer is entitled to protection from intimidation arising from the lawful exercise of judicial authority”, Musa said.

He added that the credibility of the justice system depends not on whether every litigant agrees with a judgment, but on whether disputes can be resolved through established legal procedures without intimidation or political interference.