GROWING INCIDENCE OF CONFLICTING COURT JUDGEMENTS

The judiciary remains one of the most critical pillars of democracy, serving as the last hope of the common man and the ultimate arbiter in disputes. Its credibility, independence and integrity are therefore indispensable to the stability of any democratic society. Unfortunately, recent developments within Nigeria’s judicial system have continued to raise serious concerns about the consistency of judicial pronouncements and the growing incidence of conflicting court judgements, a trend that threatens public confidence in the administration of justice.The recent judgement delivered by a Federal High Court in Abuja ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party (AP), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) has once again brought this issue to the forefront. What makes the judgement particularly troubling is the fact that there was already a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal directing the trial judge to stay action on the matter pending the determination of the appeal. Such developments naturally raise questions about judicial discipline and adherence to established legal procedures.Despite repeated warnings and interventions by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the National Judicial Council (NJC), Nigerians continue to witness conflicting pronouncements from courts of coordinate jurisdiction. Even more disturbing are instances where lower courts appear to disregard or act contrary to orders issued by superior courts. These occurrences not only create confusion among litigants but also undermine the hierarchy upon which the judicial system is built.Another worrying trend is the increasing tendency of some judges to make pronouncements on issues that were neither sought nor canvassed by parties before the court. The role of the court is to determine matters placed before it by litigants and not to venture into areas outside the reliefs sought. Whenever courts make orders on matters not properly before them, they expose their decisions to controversy and diminish public trust in the judicial process.Equally concerning is the manner in which parties to court disputes often interpret judgements to suit their individual interests. Rather than complying with the spirit and entirety of judicial pronouncements, many litigants and stakeholders selectively rely on portions that favour their positions while ignoring other aspects of the same judgement. This practice has become increasingly common and contributes significantly to the confusion surrounding many high profile legal disputes.A recent example can be found in the Supreme Court’s judgement concerning the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Since the judgement was delivered, various parties, including INEC, have continued to advance differing interpretations of the court’s decision. Even after the Certified True Copy of the judgement became available, stakeholders have largely focused on isolated sections that support their respective arguments instead of examining the judgement as a whole. Such selective interpretation of judicial decisions is unhealthy for the legal system and for democratic governance.These developments are setting a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy. When courts issue seemingly conflicting orders, when lower courts fail to respect decisions of higher courts, and when litigants cherry pick portions of judgements to advance their interests, the result is uncertainty and institutional distrust. If left unchecked, these practices have the potential to trigger serious political and constitutional crises capable of threatening national stability.

Raccontata dathisdaylive.com