Recurring conflicting court orders bordering on political cases have embarrassed the Nigerian judiciary system. SILVER NWOKORO reports that this troubling trend raises serious concerns about the integrity and independence of the judiciary arm of government.

There is apparently no reasonable Nigerian who is not worried about the embarrassing web of conflicting court orders that the judiciary has become entangled with. These orders typically arise when different courts of coordinate jurisdiction issue contradictory rulings on the same subject matter. There is no doubt that such situations create confusion, delay justice, and ultimately undermine public confidence in the judiciary, which is a vital pillar of democracy in any country.

Also, events emanating from some courts in the country are evoking concerns as people now question the judicial process and its integrity, given that the judiciary is supposed to be the last hope of the common man.

For instance, the immediate-past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, who is facing allegations of corruption successfully obtained a court order to halt his invitation to answer to the charges. He had approached a Kogi State high court where he filed a fundamental human rights suit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before Justice Isa Jamil to protect himself from being arrested.

Justice Jamil delivered a ruling, where he issued an interim order restraining the EFCC from arresting, detaining, persecuting or prosecuting Bello over the subject matter of the charge against him, pending the determination of the suit.

Later, the judge delivered a judgment on the substantive suit where he granted an order, restraining the EFCC from continuing to threaten to arrest or detain the applicant based on the criminal charges.

Although this was not the first time politically exposed persons have successfully blocked their arrest and prosecution through the courts, the frequency is becoming more worrisome. Unfortunately, hardly an ordinary citizen facing prosecution by any anti-graft agency or police receives similar protection from the same judiciary no matter how deserving the fellow’s case may be.

While the Kogi court was delivering judgment on the substantive suit, the EFCC approached Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja for an arrest warrant on Bello, which was also issued. Currently, the order has been vacated and the EFCC is poised to arraign the still evasive former governor.

Before Bello was the Kano judicial debacle. It concerned the Kano emirate tussle between Aminu Ado Bayero and Muhammadu Sanusi II, involving the federal and the state high courts. While Justice Amina Aliyu of the state high court affirmed the restoration of Sanusi to the throne through the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law, 2024, Justice A.M. Liman, federal high court issued an ex parte order suspending the implementation of the law, insisting that Bayero remained the King.

Simultaneously, Justice S.A. Amobeda of the Federal High Court, Kano, issued another ex parte, which affirmed the order earlier issued by Justice Liman and, on the other hand, conflicted with the order issued by Justice Aliyu.

The most recent in this sordid affair is the harvest of court decisions in Rivers State. Justice I. Igwe of the River State High Court in a suit brought by the All People’s Party (APP) had ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to release the voter’ register used for the conduct of the 2023 general election to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC), to conduct local government elections slated for October 5. At the same time, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court ordered INEC not to release the same register to the RSIEC until it has been updated.

Curiously, while Justice Igwe in the September 5 judgment ordered security agencies to provide security during the LG polls, Justice Lifu ordered them to the contrary.

The two conflicting orders led to a near breakdown of law and order in the state before and during the elections. Following the successful conduct of the polls, Joyce Abdulmalik of the Abuja High Court ordered the Federal Government to withhold allocations accruing to River State until the 2024 budget is represented to the 26 lawmakers who allegedly defected from the People’s Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) said it is unhappy about these developments. It berated those courts for the conflicting verdicts on the Rivers State Local Government Election. The NBA described the situation as concerning and deeply disheartening.

NBA President, Mr. Afam Osigwe (SAN), said the conflicting court orders amount to judicial rascality. “The NBA is committed to engaging with all relevant stakeholders to find a sustainable solution to this constant judicial conflict, as the consistency and coherence of the law are fundamental to its effectiveness,” Osigwe said.

Speaking on the conflicting court judgments and their implications, a Constitutional lawyer, Evans Ufeli said it makes the courts appear like it is not coordinated.

“When you look at it deeply, you will find out how helpless the judiciary is. A politician will file a matter in any state, and while it is ongoing, another person goes to Abuja and files a matter partly on that same. The matter in Abuja will be with different prayers. The one in Port Harcourt has different prayers before the state high court. They are both on the same subject, but their prayers differ. You don’t expect the outcomes to be the same,” he said.

On possible solutions towards tackling the issue, Ufeli said the judiciary should ensure that anybody who is filing a case is supposed to submit an affidavit that they have not filed the same case elsewhere in which case the fellow would be disciplined if found to be false.

He, however, noted that it would be difficult to arrest the ugly practice of filing multiple cases in different courts partly on an existing issue since the prayers would be different even though they all have the same root cause.

Ufeli said: “So, it’s a matter that requires patriotism from citizens – litigants and lawyers should not file multiplicity of action. They can’t file a matter in different courts on the same matter and ask for different prayers.

“The judiciary has to ensure that lawyers who file these cases swear that they are not filing it in any other court. We are already doing that in election matters.” He added that the judiciary should have a common database, where every matter filed will be checked whether something similar has been filed before.

A Lagos-based lawyer, Daniel Asomugha lamented that conflicting court orders cause chaos and confusion in the society, thereby making people lose trust and confidence in the system.

Asomugha suggested that the system be harmonised through an automated database. “If we have a digital system, people should be able to know whether such cases have been filed in that same jurisdiction or somewhere else. By doing so, it will reduce the abuse of the court process.

“So, when you apply for a judicial review, people should learn to be sure they’ve not abused the process. This is one of the ways to also restore integrity,” he said.

Another lawyer, Ezebube Chinwike, explained that the effects, weight and consequences of every court decision are determined by the court’s hierarchy that grants the order or issues the directives.

“If a court of higher hierarchy issues or makes an order contrary to the order made by a lower court, it does not spark any form of controversy as courts are guided by precedents, especially on decisions of courts of higher composition.

“High courts are guided by decisions or orders of the Appeal Court, while both the High Court and Appeal Courts are under mandatory compliance to orders and decisions of the Supreme Court.

“Hierarchy of courts is a constitutional provision. So, conflicting court orders exist only with courts of coordinate jurisdiction. A court of coordinate jurisdiction is not bound though persuaded by the decisions of another and most importantly, when the court is aware of the existence of such decisions,” he explained.

Defending these conflicting orders, he argued that there are instances where a court of coordinator jurisdiction may be unaware of the order or decision of another court of the same hierarchy while issuing its orders as the courts are bound only by facts brought before it. This, he said, maybe one genuine reason for conflicting court orders.

He added that politicians utilise conflicting court orders as a muscle-flexing exercise with a detrimental effect on the valuation of the judiciary.His words: “There are judges that have been sanctioned for such orders, but its continuous emergence is a product of the heavy political influence over the judiciary. The judiciary has been battered by such Justice defeating escapades, but given the financial rewards associated with those activities, some will rather choose the bad name and the cash it offers than the good name and the paucity of wealth associated with it.”

Chinwike, therefore, suggested that the appointment of judges and judiciary officers should be on merit, adding that there should be proper sanctions against judges who engage erroneously in the issuance of contradictory and conflicting court orders and prosecution of lawyers and litigants who persuade and influence the issuance of court orders to their favour against the justice system.