The Nigerian human rights lawyer and lead counsel for the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has expressed concern over recent judicial pronouncements on matters of national importance, particularly those affecting Nigeria’s democratic process, saying they have generated widespread legal debate and public interest.
In a statement issued on Monday and titled:MONDAY MUSINGS
WHEN THE LAST TEMPLE OF JUSTICE TREMBLES: Judicial Independence and the Survival of Nigeria’s Constitutional Democracy — A Solemn Call for the Judiciary to Rise in Defence of the Constitution,Ejiofor stated that the judiciary remains the citizens’ last line of defence against executive arbitrariness, legislative excesses, and the abuse of public power.
According to him, the courts command neither the sword nor the purse; rather, their authority rests almost entirely on public confidence.
He noted that once public confidence in the judiciary is eroded, the rule of law itself begins to weaken.
“It is against this constitutional background,” he said, “that recent judicial pronouncements on matters of national importance, particularly those affecting our democratic process, have generated widespread legal debate and public concern.
“Two recent decisions of the Federal High Court have especially attracted constitutional discourse. The first concerns proceedings reportedly conducted and concluded notwithstanding a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal restraining further action by the trial court. The second concerns the reported judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Kogi State, which set aside an earlier judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party.
“These developments naturally raise important constitutional questions. By what recognised legal principle may a court revisit its own final judgment? Were exceptional circumstances, such as fraud, nullity, or the concealment of material facts, established to justify such intervention?
“Our law has long settled that once a court delivers its final judgment, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reopen that decision except in narrowly defined circumstances. The doctrine exists for a compelling reason: litigation must, at some point, come to an end.”he said.
Ejiofor further stated that the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this settled principle when it declined an application seeking to review and set aside one of its final judgments.
According to him, the apex court described the application as an abuse of judicial process and imposed substantial costs on counsel, thereby reinforcing the long-established principle that final judgments should not be reopened except in exceptional circumstances recognised by law.
He maintained that a nation does not endure merely because it possesses a Constitution; rather, it survives because those entrusted with interpreting the Constitution possess the courage, independence, and moral conviction to uphold it against abuses of power.
Ejiofor observed that every constitutional democracy rests upon a delicate but indispensable balance among the three arms of government.
According to him, the Executive administers, the Legislature enacts laws, and the Judiciary interprets and applies those laws without fear or favour.
He said that none exists to serve another; rather, each exists to provide constitutional checks and balances.
“This separation of powers is not an abstract constitutional ideal,” . “It is the very foundation upon which liberty, accountability, and the rule of law are built. Whenever one arm of government becomes subservient to another, whether through intimidation, compromise, political expediency, or institutional weakness, the constitutional equilibrium is disturbed, and democracy begins a gradual but dangerous decline.
“History teaches that democracies rarely collapse overnight. They often deteriorate gradually through the erosion of institutions, the silence of principled leaders, and the loss of public confidence in institutions established to protect the people. Among these, none occupies a more significant place than the Judiciary.”he stated.
He noted that the broader concern extends beyond any individual case, adding that certain judicial decisions in politically sensitive matters have increasingly generated public debate regarding judicial independence.
According to him, whether such perceptions are justified or not, they deserve careful consideration because public confidence is fundamental to the legitimacy of the judicial institution.
He continued: “Perhaps no development poses a greater challenge to constitutional democracy than a Judiciary perceived as vulnerable to external influence.
“A politician who abuses public office may undermine governance. A public official who fails in duty may impede effective administration. An electoral official who acts improperly may affect the credibility of an election. However, a judicial officer whose independence is called into question has the potential to affect public confidence in the administration of justice.
“The consequences extend far beyond the parties before the court. They may weaken public confidence in constitutional governance itself.
“History offers sobering lessons. Across many nations, democratic decline did not begin with military intervention or the suspension of constitutions. Rather, it began when institutions gradually lost their independence and courts became reluctant or unable to effectively check unconstitutional exercises of governmental power.
“Even a single controversial judicial pronouncement may have significant institutional consequences, underscoring the importance of maintaining public confidence in the Judiciary.
“This reality highlights the indispensable role of the National Judicial Council (NJC), under the leadership of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, GCON. As the constitutional body responsible for judicial discipline, the Council must continue to discharge its responsibilities with firmness, transparency, fairness, and institutional courage whenever credible allegations of judicial misconduct arise.
“Judicial accountability must never be mistaken for judicial persecution. On the contrary, accountability strengthens judicial independence by preserving public confidence in the institution.”
Ejiofor further stated that Nigeria’s judicial history has been shaped by jurists whose integrity and scholarship continue to command respect.
He cited the late Justices Chukwudifu Oputa, Niki Tobi, and George Adesola Oguntade as examples of judicial officers who exemplified the highest ideals of the Bench through their scholarship, independence, integrity, and unwavering commitment to justice.
According to him, their legacy serves as a reminder that the true dignity of judicial office lies not merely in the authority it confers but in the integrity with which that authority is exercised.
He maintained that the survival of constitutional governance depends not only on periodic elections but also on judges who are willing to uphold the Constitution without fear or favour, irrespective of executive influence, political pressure, or institutional challenges.
“The Judiciary remains the Republic’s final fortress of liberty,” “If that fortress is weakened, the Constitution itself risks becoming little more than a beautifully printed document.
“This reflection is therefore not an attack on the Judiciary. Rather, it is an earnest appeal for the continued preservation of its independence and integrity. The overwhelming majority of Nigerian judges continue to discharge their constitutional responsibilities with honour, diligence, and professionalism. Their exemplary service should not be overshadowed by the controversy surrounding a limited number of judicial decisions.
“Nigeria stands today at an important constitutional moment. The National Judicial Council must continue to safeguard the sanctity of judicial office with unwavering resolve. The legal profession must defend judicial independence while insisting upon judicial accountability.
“Above all, Nigerians must continue to demand that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to have been done.
“For when the last temple of justice begins to tremble, every other democratic institution is affected. But when the Judiciary stands firm, the Constitution itself stands secure.
“The future of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy may ultimately depend upon the courage of those privileged to wear the judicial robe and their fidelity to the solemn oath they swore to uphold.”he stated.
