Legal expert Liborous Oshoma has expressed his concerns over the persistent challenges within Nigeria’s judicial system, particularly regarding political cases.
Oshoma In an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday, voiced skepticism about the ability of the judiciary to maintain discipline and consistency, despite assurances from past and present Chief Justices of Nigeria (CJN).
“Kekere-Ekun is not the first Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) that is saying [they] would tackle indiscipline in the bench,” Oshoma remarked. “She is not the first and she is not going to be the last.”
Oshoma pointed to the systemic nature of the problem, suggesting that declarations of reform may not be enough. “For me, these are mere electorates because the problem is endemic, it’s a systemic problem.
“Nigerians generally are good people, but when it comes to politics, we just completely throw it away,” he lamented.
He specifically highlighted how politics has eroded many aspects of Nigeria’s legal framework. “Everything that politicians touch in this country, you see how they completely destroy it.
“And so the only way you can solve this problem is when you remove pre- and post-election matters from the courtroom. Politicians will no longer be interested in what happens in the judiciary,” Oshoma suggested as a solution.
Recalling past legal reforms, he explained that gubernatorial election petitions used to be resolved at the Court of Appeal until constitutional amendments gave the Supreme Court final jurisdiction.
“This shift was prompted by inconsistent rulings from lower courts. “Before now, the position of the constitution—until it was amended—governorship election petitions used to end at the Court of Appeal.
“What led to the Supreme Court saying ‘bring them’? It was because they were giving conflicting judgments.”
Oshoma continued by referencing examples of judicial inconsistencies: “The Court of Appeal on the same set of acts in Port Harcourt would give one judgment, and on the same set of acts, the Court of Appeal in Kaduna would give another judgment.”
He also cited recent cases of conflicting court orders, notably within the All Progressives Congress (APC). “Recently, when you hear a court in Abuja granted an order removing the national chairman of APC, Oshiomhole, from office, immediately another court in Kano granted a contrary order.”
Reflecting on political disputes within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Oshoma mentioned the infighting in 2015. “When the fight for the soul of the PDP was at its height, today we would hear an order from Abuja, just like we are hearing now, and the very next day a conflicting order from Rivers State, both from the Federal High Court.”
He proposed reforms to address this issue, advocating for the use of electronic dockets to prevent overlapping cases. “He was advised that the Federal High Court should have an electronic docket, so that once a matter is filed, before the matter is assigned, there should be a need to reconcile the facts of that case by the administrative judge to know if a similar matter had been filed.”
However, Oshoma remains doubtful about the judiciary’s ability to resolve these issues. “All of those were said, and even the CJN then during screening also came out to say, ‘We will ensure that we reign these people in.’ And at the end of it, what happened?” he asked rhetorically.
Summing up his concerns, Oshoma emphasised the deep-rooted nature of the problem. “The problem here is the fact that anything that politicians touch here, you will always see decay and the rot.”
He also cited specific instances of conflicting rulings between courts in different states, noting, “Look at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the State High Court in Port Harcourt—it is the same thing, ping-pong with the lawmakers in Rivers State.
“The Federal High Court in Abuja would give a judgment, the very next day the State High Court in Rivers State would give a conflicting judgment, even in matters where they clearly do not have jurisdiction to determine,” he concluded.
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
