Contradictory Court judgment: When the abnormal becomes the norm

Contradictory Court judgment: When the abnormal becomes the norm

ADEOLA OJO

Contradictory rulings on PDP convention once again throws up the issue of conflicting orders and ex parte injunctions by judges of courts with coordinate powers and jurisdiction in same matters, especially politically sensitive cases. ADEOLA OJO reports that there is a consensus that such development is bad for the integrity of the judiciary but some legal practitioners think the judges cannot be blamed as the judiciary only rules based on facts before it.

Last week, confusion arose in the camp of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) camp following two contradictory court rulings on its planned elective national convention slated for November 15 and 16, 2025, at the Lekan Salami Adamasingba Stadium in Ibadan. The much anticipated two-day convention with an expected over 3,000 delegates from across the country, is designed to elect the party’s new national officers.

But till now, there is a cloud of uncertainty trailing the event as two High Courts of coordinate jurisdiction; a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and the Oyo State High Court in Ibadan have given different contradictory rulings and orders; one put the event on hold while the other asked the PDP to go on with the convention

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, granted an ex parte injunction restraining the PDP from holding its convention until the determination of the substantive suit before him. The judge ruled that the party’s preparations contravened its own constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act, directing the PDP to “put its house in order” before proceeding but in a contrary decision, Justice A. L. Akintola of the Oyo State High Court, Ibadan, examined the PDP constitution, the Nigerian Constitution, and relevant electoral laws, and concluded that the party had met all required legal provisions. He therefore ordered the PDP to proceed with the convention without obstruction.

The conflicting court decisions have now placed the future of the PDP’s Ibadan convention in doubt, deepening uncertainty within Nigeria’s main opposition party at a time it is struggling to retain its identity and relevance

This is not the first of such; in September 2024, there was a publicized contradictory ruling on issues from Rivers State. The conflicting court orders arose from the local government election in Rivers State and like the recent PDP issue, the rulings emanated from the Federal High Court and the Rivers State High Court.

It will be recalled that Justice I. Igwe of Rivers State High Court ordered the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) to conduct the forthcoming local government elections in the state, using the 2023 voters’ register compiled by INEC and mandated the Nigeria Police Force, and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Force to provide necessary protection during the election process while Justice Peter Lifu of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, six days before the conduct of the Rivers State local government election, restrained INEC from releasing voters’ register to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission, (RSIEC), to conduct the October 5, 2024 local government election in the state.

Justice Igwe in his September 4, 2024 ruling, said the defendants are bound by Section 7 (1) of the Constitution and Section 5 (A) of the RSIEC Law Number 2 of 2018 to make provisions and conduct the local government polls within the shortest possible time, especially following the expiration of the tenure of the former elected officials on June 17.

The court also cited as a necessity, the recent decision of the Federal Government mandating states without democratically elected local governments to do so within three months, following the judgment of the Supreme Court on local government autonomy. The Court urged that all necessary arrangements be made to ensure the conduct of the election on October 5, 2024, as announced by RSIEC.

Justice Lifu on his part, six days before the conduct of the election, restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), from releasing voters’ registers to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission, (RSIEC), to conduct the local government election in the state. The court also barred the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Department of the State Service (DSS) from participating and providing security for the conduct of the local government area election.

Justice Lifu issued the order while delivering judgment in a suit brought before him by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging the legality or otherwise of the processes leading to the fixing of October 5, 2024 for the election. The police complied with the Federal High Court order and discarded that of Rivers State High Court, leading to controversy and widespread criticisms, with stakeholders condemning the act and warning of dire consequences for the polity.

Contradictory court orders have been a cause of concern in the Nigerian judiciary and the entire legal circle in Nigeria with legal practitioners and advocates expressing their views. Before now, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) had expressed deep concern over the increasing issuance of frivolous court orders and ex parte injunctions by judges, particularly in politically sensitive cases, urging the National Judicial Council (NJC), to immediately sanction judicial officers involved in the actions, warning that such practices could jeopardize Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

HURIWA said this mirrors Nigeria’s troubled political history and threatens the stability of its democratic processes, urging the National Judicial Council, NJC, to immediately sanction judicial officers involved in the actions and warning that such practices could jeopardize Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

It highlighted that many of these orders were tainted by allegations of bribery, which, according to the group, further eroded public trust in the judiciary and had warned that the judiciary was at risk of becoming a tool for political manipulation, with corrupt judges contributing to the erosion of democratic order, reiterating that “the judiciary must not be reduced to a pawn in political games.”

Speaking on the Rivers contradictory judgments last year, a professor of Law, Mike Ozekhome, had expressed worry by the confusion caused by conflicting rulings and judgments of courts of coordinate jurisdiction, stating that the development must be fought frontally as it has the capacity to derail the country’s democracy.

He said the development must be fought frontally as it has the capacity to derail the country’s democracy, adding that giving conflicting judgments by two courts of coordinate jurisdiction has become a worrisome development that must be fought frontally.

According to him, lawyers and judges are complicit in the infamous mantra. He further noted: “It becomes difficult to know what judgment to follow since people involved may decide to pick and choose which one favours them.

A lawyer and the Vice President of the African Bar Association (West African Region), Samson Osagie said there are no conflicting court orders in the case of the Rivers state Local Government election, adding that “what happens is that parties to political disputes abuse the processes of court by filing actions in different jurisdictions of the courts in order to obtain favorable judgments or orders.”

According to him, when a court is confronted with a particular set of facts it deals with those facts on the basis of the applicable law without knowing that those same sets of facts have been twisted by other parties before a different court, usually with coordinate powers and jurisdiction who also deal with same matter on the basis of law. At the end, he said, you find a matter in which different courts had made orders.

“The solution to this despicable abuse of court processes by litigants and their lawyers is to insist that matters arising from a particular jurisdiction should be heard in that jurisdiction rather that a matter in Asaba for instance taken to Federal High Court in Lagos for hearing. What happened to the Federal High Court in Asaba when the issues in contention relates to the action of the Government of Delta State or any of its agency?

“This method of shopping for forum by litigants and lawyers should be seriously sanctioned by courts and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) in order to bring some sanity,” he said.

Osagie said, judges should also be wary of accepting to adjudicate on matters emanating from territorial jurisdictions outside their own territorial jurisdictions. In this way, he said, cases on same facts are likely to be consolidated by same court and judgment delivered one way or the order without the possibility of two different courts of coordinate jurisdictions hearing same matter and making varying orders.

Other legal practitioners have also expressed their views on contradictory issues. A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Yomi Alliyu (SAN), had stated that it is unfair to condemn Federal Court judges for their orders as they only ruled on what was submitted before the court, adding that Supreme Court never held that elections to local government councils should be held in violation of extant laws of the land.

According to him, “judgments of courts must be read before passing comments. It is unfair to condemn Justices for deciding cases on the basis of the evidence before them simply because the judgment was in conflict with that of another court;

Also speaking, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) stated that “the practice is extremely wrong and has brought the justice delivery machinery to an all-time low. The problem can be addressed with technology. All decisions; be it rulings or judgments should be automatically uploaded to a platform where judges must cross-check before handing down decisions. Again those in charge of allocation of cases to judges must also be cautious, they must not assign cases on the same subject matter to different judges. Lastly, the judiciary must rebrand so as to be fit for purpose. The judiciary should re-establish itself as existing for all of us. Our democracy is very much under stress.”

Abuja based legal practitioner, Ugochukwu Osuagwu on his part said “I think it’s all about corruption. NJC should start sanctioning some of these judicial officers if they are found to be corrupt. Otherwise, I don’t see why Federal High Court should handle matters concerning state election being organized by state agencies and not federal agencies in contrast to Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. If the NJC should sit up by imposing sanctions, all these things will stop.”

Also speaking, Barrister Foluso Olapo stated that “even though there are extant laws guiding elections in Nigeria, but the electoral processes are usually fraught with irregularities. Unfortunately, these are compounded by the courts. For instance, I cannot fathom why a Federal High Court would assume jurisdiction on a local government election which is an exclusive reserve of state governments’ neither do I understand the conflicting orders being churned out of these courts. If care is not taken, the judiciary may be knelling the death bell of democracy in Nigeria”

A former chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association, Ikeja, Dave Ajetomobi, on his part, stated that; “The situation is reflection of how much of a problem Nigeria is. If the NJC fails to wield the big stick, one judge will give order that Tinubu can no longer be President and another one will retain him, while the third will claim that his election is not legal.”

There was a consensus that use of federal and state courts for political sparring is a huge threat Nigeria’s democracy and can lead to chaos.