Nigerian judiciary and the common man

By Emmanuel Ogbuefi

Between reverence and reality

The Nigerian judiciary has historically been regarded as the last hope of the common man. It has served as the guardian of justice, the protector of civil liberties, and the interpreter of laws in a democracy that often struggles with political instability, economic inequality, and weak institutions. In theory, it should offer equal protection under the law, regardless of status or wealth. In practice, however, growing cases of conflicting judgments, judicial delays, and perceived corruption have cast a long shadow over this once-sacred arm of government. This article interrogates the current state of Nigeria’s judiciary, evaluating whether it still serves the ordinary citizen or has become an elite tool in the contest for power.

The role of the judiciary in a democracy

The judiciary is not merely an adjudicator of disputes; it is the conscience of the nation. It ensures that the law remains supreme and that government actions conform to constitutional limits. In a country like Nigeria—diverse, populous, and historically fragmented—the importance of a strong, independent, and credible judiciary cannot be overstated.

It must protect the constitution, ensure due process, check abuses of power, and guarantee fair access to justice for every citizen. When courts are trusted, peace prevails. When they are not, people resort to self-help, violence, and anarchy.

The spectre of conflicting judgments

One of the most distressing issues confronting the judiciary today is the alarming frequency of conflicting judgments, particularly in electoral matters and intra-party disputes. The 2019 and 2023 general election cycles exposed this flaw dramatically. In several instances, two courts of coordinate jurisdiction issued diametrically opposed rulings on identical legal questions—leaving INEC, parties, and the public in confusion. These judicial inconsistencies raise troubling questions about the uniformity of the law, the discipline of the judiciary, and the possibility of external influence or internal compromise. The common man, who relies on the predictability of legal processes, is left wondering if justice in Nigeria depends more on where and before whom a case is heard than on the merit of the argument.

Perceptions of corruption and influence peddling

While there are judges in Nigeria who continue to uphold the rule of law with courage and integrity, the institution as a whole has suffered image damage due to allegations of corruption. The 2016 DSS raids on the homes of some senior judges, while controversial, highlighted the widespread suspicion of bribery, undue influence, and case manipulation. Cases abound where powerful politicians secure favorable rulings in suspicious circumstances, while the poor are denied basic bail or fair hearing. Many believe that the principle of “justice for sale” has taken root in some parts of the judicial system. This perception is dangerous. The judiciary loses moral authority when it is seen as being purchasable. It reinforces class divisions and undermines the idea that the law is a shield for the weak.

Justice delayed: A system in slow motion

In Nigeria, the wheels of justice turn excruciatingly slow. Civil cases can linger in court for 10 to 15 years. Criminal trials, even in high-profile cases, suffer endless adjournments. This inefficiency is not merely procedural—it is existential. For the common man who has suffered injustice, justice delayed is justice denied. The cost of litigation is high, court facilities are overstretched, and the judicial process is frequently hijacked by technicalities. This long wait discourages victims from seeking redress, encourages out-of-court settlements laced with coercion, and erodes confidence in the judicial system’s relevance.

Election tribunals: Courts or battlefields?

Nowhere is the fragility of the judiciary more visible than in election petition tribunals. These are supposed to be sanctuaries of truth where electoral grievances are fairly resolved. Instead, they often become political battlegrounds, with rival parties deploying legal technicalities, propaganda, and sometimes even financial inducements to sway outcomes. Judgments from these tribunals are sometimes contradictory and, at other times, outright shocking. The perception is that verdicts are pre-determined by political godfathers, and lawyers have become more focused on exploiting loopholes than defending democratic mandates. The consequences are dire: voter apathy, public cynicism, and the belief that courts—not ballots—determine leadership in Nigeria.

Two justice systems: One for the rich, one for the poor

There is growing concern about inequality before the law in Nigeria. While the Constitution guarantees equal treatment, the reality is starkly different. Wealthy and well-connected individuals often enjoy legal privileges—prompt bail, endless appeals, and eventual acquittals. In contrast, thousands of poor Nigerians remain in custody without trial, often for non-violent offences. This dual justice system exposes the hypocrisy within the legal structure and deepens public resentment. If the law cannot protect the weak from the strong, its legitimacy comes into question.

Judges under pressure: Integrity amid adversity

Despite the many challenges, not all hope is lost. There are judges and magistrates across Nigeria, who continue to deliver brave, unbiased judgments—even under political pressure and personal risk. From rulings against illegal government actions to judgments protecting press freedom and fundamental rights, some judicial officers have demonstrated that integrity is still alive on the bench. However, these upright judges operate in a toxic environment, often without institutional support. Their moral victories, though admirable, remain isolated acts of heroism.

Judicial oversight: The role of the NJC

The National Judicial Council (NJC) is the body tasked with maintaining discipline within the judiciary. While it has sanctioned some judges over the years, many believe it is not proactive or transparent enough. Cases of gross misconduct often go unpunished, while junior judicial officers bear the brunt of disciplinary action. The process of appointing and promoting judges is also criticized for being opaque and politicized. To truly restore the judiciary’s credibility, the NJC must be strengthened, independent, and fully empowered to sanitize the system without fear or favor.

Judicial reform: A national imperative

To return the judiciary to its role as the defender of justice for the common man, radical reforms are required:

Independence: Judicial funding and appointments must be free from executive manipulation. Transparency: All judgments should be published promptly, and disciplinary records made public. Speed: Courts must adopt technology to fast-track hearings and eliminate unnecessary delays.

Access: Legal aid must be expanded so that the poor can get representation in civil and criminal matters. Meritocracy: Judges should be appointed based on competence, not connections.

Conclusion: A flickering hope

So, is the judiciary in Nigeria still the last hope of the common man? The honest answer is: it is no longer a guarantee. The institution that was designed to be the ultimate defender of the weak is itself weakened—by corruption, inconsistency, influence, and delay. Yet, the potential for renewal remains. The courage of a few judges, the resilience of civil society, and the increasing awareness of the public provide a glimmer of hope.

To restore the faith of the common man, the judiciary must first look inward, admit its failings, and embrace reform. Only then can it stand once again as the last and enduring hope in a nation where justice must not only be done—but must be seen to be done.

.Ogbuefi, a lawyer, writes [email protected]