The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Court dismisses objection to customs agents’ suit

    Court dismisses objection to customs agents’ suit

    •ANLCA MMAC chair hails court ruling

    Justice Akintunde Savage of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has dismissed the preliminary objection against the suit filed by the current executive of the Association of the Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA), Muritala Mohammed Airport Command (MMAC) chapter.

    Justice Savage while ruling on the matter  held that the preliminary objection lacks merit and subsequently dismissed it.

    The applicant in the suit marked  ID/8399GCM/202 are Mr. Bamgbala Abayomi Adewusi, Davis Ben Chukwuneye, Sylvester Osa Iyamu, Lekwauwa Ifeanyi Valentine and Okere  Chinedu Ositadinma who filed the suit on behalf of themselves and current executives of  ANLCA.

    The respondents in the suit are Akindele Pius Temitope, Alhaji Taiwo Mustapha, Prince Ozor Chukwurah, Mr Emenike Kingsley Nwokeoji, Elder Olumide Francis Fakanlu was sued for themselves and on behalf of the National Executive Committee of the Nigerian Custom Agents and Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Association of Nigerian Licensed Custom Agents as 1st  to 6th respondents.

    The respondents had challenged the court jurisdiction, by filling a preliminary objection.

    They noted that the court cannot sit as an appellate court on the judgment by the Badagry Division on the same subject matter.

    Justice Salvage in his ruling held that “ He sees no element of abuse of court process in the suit. The judgement of high court and the present suit involved different parties and different causes of action.

    “Before the judgement was delivered, the respondents have won the election and were duly sworn in by the 6th applicant, while cause of action in the judgment arose after the alleged first respondent emerged as a chairman of the MMIA Chapter, and his term ended in 2022.”

    The judge held that that case cited by the applicants counsel are opposite to the instant suit.

    “A judgement obtained by a party does not necessarily mean they can use it to oust the present executives, especially when the  office of the respondent has not ended….

    “ In totality and conclusively, I find and hold that this notice of preliminary objection lacks merit.

    “It is hereby dismissed. The cost of N25,000 is awarded in favour of claimants”, the court held.

    Following the ruling, the current Chairman of ANLCA, (MMAC) Chapter, Prince Bamigbala  Adewusi, expressed appreciation to members of the chapter for their support throughout the leadership dispute that has lingered for months.

    Adewusi urged  members to remain focused and dedicated to the affairs of the command, stressing the strategic role of customs agents in the nation’s trade and supply chain.

    Adewusi, while speaking with the newsmen  in Lagos said both the Lagos State High Court judgment and the findings of the Nigerian Police have affirmed him as the legitimate chairman of the MMAC chapter.

    Read Also: Data power: SECURE-Nigeria has transformed surveillance, labs, public-health preparedness – FG

    According to him, the court held that his tenure remained valid and that he could not be removed by either Mr. Tope Akindele or Mr. Bola Asiru, noting that the association’s constitution was not duly considered in attempts to oust him.

    He added that the police investigation also supported his claim, stating that an appeal is still ongoing, which preserves his legal authority to remain in office.

    He noted that despite the months-long crisis, he had maintained calm and adhered strictly to due process out of respect for the volatile nature of the command and the integrity of his office.

    He also extended gratitude to the National President of ANLCA, Mr. Nwokeoji Emenike, commending him for his efforts to restore peace across commands. He urged the national leadership to sustain the momentum, adding that past conflicts between the MMAC chapter and the national body were gradually being resolved.

    Adewusi further called on his opponents whom he described as colleagues to prioritise unity and professionalism over politics, and to join efforts to stabilise the command in the interest of members and the association at large.

  • Bill to remove judgment enforcement’s barriers scales debate

    Bill to remove judgment enforcement’s barriers scales debate

    Adebule leads reform of 80-year-old Sheriff and Civil Process Act

    The Senate has begun moves to improve judgment enforcement with the consideration of a bill to amend the Sheriff and Civil Process Act of 2004, sponsored by Senator Idiat Adebule (APC Lagos West District). TAJUDEEN ADEBANJO writes

    In a decisive move aimed at modernising the nation’s justice administration, a senator representing Lagos West District, Dr Idiat Oluranti Adebule, has called for a comprehensive amendment of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, an 80-year-old legislation she said no longer serves the needs of a dynamic and digital  society.

    Leading the debate on the bill during plenary, Adebule described the Act, enacted in 1945, as “manifestly outdated” and “disconnected from present realities.”

     She reminded her colleagues that the law was introduced during colonial administration and has since remained largely unchanged despite profound shifts in technology, governance and legal practice.

    The senator cited some of the law’s most glaringly obsolete provisions, including a clause that still prescribes 45 kobo as the monthly allowance for debtor prisoners, a figure that symbolises how far behind the law has fallen. According to her, it is not just outdated; it is absurd.

    She emphasised the need to align Nigeria’s justice infrastructure with modern socio-economic conditions.

    Beyond economic irrelevance, Adebule, the former Lagos State Deputy Governor, highlighted that the law does not recognise electronic service of processes despite the courts having made immense strides towards digital transformation. Via practice directions, many courts now permit e-filing, e-service, and electronic affidavits. However, without statutory backing, these innovations lack the firm legal support required for consistency and enforceability nationwide.

    “This amendment will bridge that gap and align our legislation with the realities of the digital economy,” she said.

    Senator Adebule devoted a significant portion of her debate on the floor of the chamber to one of the nation’s most contentious legal bottlenecks: enforcement of court judgments against government agencies. Under the existing Act, no monetary judgment can be enforced against a government body without the written consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation or state.

    This requirement, she argued, has become one of the greatest obstacles to accessing justice in the country.

    She said: “Judgment creditors find it exceedingly difficult to obtain such consent and often abandon their claims entirely. This defeats the purpose of judicial awards and encourages a culture of disobedience to court orders.”

    She explained that the practice has emboldened certain public institutions to ignore or delay compliance with court directives, thereby undermining the rule of law and weakening citizens’ trust in the justice system. She described the amendment as a necessary corrective measure that will reposition the judiciary as an effective and respected arm of government.

    Senator Adebule also framed the debate within a global human rights context. She referenced Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees everyone the right to an effective remedy by competent national tribunals.

    “When we create structures that make it nearly impossible to enforce judgments, we violate this right,” she warned.

    Some analysts have long lamented that the nation’s enforcement regime disproportionately affects vulnerable individuals. Those who rely on compensation for wrongful detention, unlawful dismissal, injury claims, and breaches of fundamental rights have been denied. By loosening the bureaucratic hurdles that shield public agencies from complying with judgments, the amended Act could significantly enhance access to justice for ordinary citizens.

    Adebule acknowledged concerns that smoother enforcement of judgments could strain the budgets of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). However, she maintained that the reform would produce long-term accountability gains.

    “When public institutions know that judgments will be enforced promptly, they will act more responsibly. This will reduce impunity, minimise rights violations, and ultimately lower the cost of compensation,” she said.

    Analysts say the reform could also encourage government bodies to improve internal compliance mechanisms and legal advisory processes, preventing costly disputes and promoting more transparent public administration.

    Another key proposal in the amendment is the modernisation of the roles, appointment and operational framework of sheriffs, the officers responsible for executing court orders. The bill seeks to clarify duties, strengthen oversight and ensure effectiveness in the delivery of court processes across jurisdictions.

    Judicial stakeholders have frequently complained of the delays, inefficiencies and inconsistencies associated with sheriffs’ operations under the old Act. The amendment, Adebule noted, would standardise procedures, improve professionalism and ensure that sheriffs are empowered to carry out their duties within a modern legal framework.

    She explained that reforming a foundational enforcement law like the Sheriff and Civil Process Act is key to restoring public confidence in the justice system. Over the years, the inability of citizens to enjoy the benefits of judgments in their favour has discouraged many from even seeking legal redress.

    “This amendment is not just a legal adjustment; it is part of rebuilding trust in our institutions,” she stated.

    As she concluded her presentation, Senator Adebule made a passionate appeal to her colleagues to back the reform.

    Read Also: AU-EU Summit: Nigeria insists Africa must lead its security solutions, rejects private military firms

    “To protect the integrity and image of our judiciary, to restore public confidence in our legal system, and to secure justice for our citizens, I present these amendments for your kind consideration,” she said.

    If adopted, the bill promises to usher in a more efficient, digital-friendly and rights-respecting era for civil justice administration in Nigeria. It could potentially mark one of the most significant legal reforms in recent years.

    Reactions from fellow lawmakers indicated broad support for the principles of the amendment, with several senators agreeing that the existing Act is overdue for overhaul. Some noted that the reform aligns with the administration’s commitment to rule of law, transparency and improved governance systems.

    Chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Adeniyi Adegbonmire, who is representing Ondo Central District, described the Attorney-General consent provision as “a law from colonial times.”

    Adegbonmire criticised outdated fines and administrative costs that encourage corruption.

    Senator Kaka Shehu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), expressed support for the bill, noting that it would “bring justice closer to the people and make enforcement of judgments less cumbersome”.

    Tahir Monguno, senator representing Borno North and former attorney-general of the state, said laws must be dynamic to reflect societal changes.

    Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin, who presided over the session, put the bill to a voice vote and confirmed that the ‘ayes’ had it.

    He referred the bill to the Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters to report back within four weeks.

    “The world is changing. The world is dynamic, and so also are all aspects of our lives, so I am swayed by the argument,” Barau said while thanking Adebule for sponsoring the bill.

  • How Nigeria can build unity against security challenges

    How Nigeria can build unity against security challenges

    By Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN)

    Nigeria’s security crisis has spiraled into a nation wide emergency, affecting every citizen irrespective of religion, ethnicity or status. From Boko Haram and ISWAP terror attacks in the North East to rampant banditry and kidnappings in the North West and Central Belt, and herder farmer clashes across the Middle Belt, the violence cuts across all regions. It is crucial to state that, despite the disproportionate impact on certain communities, these events do not constitute a Christian genocide; the violence is indiscriminate and affects all Nigerians.

    Recent weeks have witnessed harrowing attacks—mass abductions of schoolchildren, brutal killings of civilians, and even claims of military personnel being executed—painting a grim picture of a country grappling with multidimensional insecurity.

    Key incidents highlighted by recent reports

    Kebbi school abduction

      Gunmen stormed Government Girls Comprehensive Secondary School in Maga, Kebbi State on  November 17,  2025, killing vice principal Hassan Yakubu Makuku and seizing 25 female students. Police say the attackers arrived on motorcycles around 4 a.m., exchanged fire with guards, then fled with the girls. Two girls managed to escape later. 

    Zamfara mass kidnapping

     A separate gang abducted 64 people, including women and children, in Zamfara State the same day.

    ISWAP execution claim

     ISWAP claimed it captured and executed a senior Nigerian army officer (a brigade commander) after an ambush in Borno State. The army dismissed the claim as “fake news”. 

    Local newspaper coverage

    • Punch Newspapers ran a headline on the Kebbi attack, noting the “vice principal shot dead” and that security forces deployed tactical units and vigilantes to comb the forests. 

    •Reuters (local edition) quoted police spokesperson Nafiu Abubakar Kotarkoshi, saying the attackers used “sophisticated weapons” and that additional troops were sent to track them. 

    •Independent Newspaper Nigeria highlighted the broader security crisis, citing civil society groups who warned that “insecurity in Nigeria is not about any religion but a national challenge.” 

    What the data shows

    – Over 52,915 civilians killed since 2009; both Christian and Muslim victims. 

    – Between January–March, 2025, 586 reported abductions across 29 states. 

    – Nigeria Risk Index recorded multiple incidents in the week of 15 18 November, 2025 (Benue, Kaduna, Niger, Zamfara). 

    Summary of Government Efforts to Curb Insecurity

    Effort Description

    Recent actions / outcomes

    Military Operations Large scale offensives against Boko Haram, ISWAP, and bandit groups in North East, North West and Central Belt.

    Read Also: NASENI and the new era of Nigerian innovation

    Operation Hadarin Daji (2024 2025) cleared several forest bases; Joint Task Force (JTF) deployed in Kebbi and Zamfara after the school attack.

    Security

    Reinforcement Deployment of additional troops, tactical units, and air support to high risk states.

    Army units and vigilante groups mobilised in Kebbi, Zamfara, and Benue following the November incidents.

    Intelligence Sharing & Coordination Collaboration between NIA, NSCDC, and regional bodies (Multinational Joint Task Force).

    Establishment of a 24-hour-crisis cell after the Kebbi abduction to improve real time response.

    Community Engagement Dialogue with traditional leaders, youth groups, and civil society to reduce communal clashes. Peace summits in Kaduna (October 2025) and Niger State (November 2025) promoted inter communal cooperation.

    Humanitarian and Victim Support

    Provision of relief, medical aid, counseling, and safe shelters for displaced persons. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dispatched aid to Kebbi and Zamfara victims.

    Legal and Policy

     Measures strengthening anti-terror laws, prosecuting kidnappers, and blacklisting financiers.

    Passage of the Anti Banditry Act (2025) expanding powers of arrest and seizure.

    International Cooperation Partnership with U.S., EU, and neighbouring countries for intelligence and funding.

    U.S. designation of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (November 2025) spurred diplomatic pressure for reforms.

    These combined measures reflect a multi pronged approach—military, diplomatic, community based, and humanitarian—aimed at breaking the cycle of violence and restoring safety for all Nigerians.

    Conclusion

    While the recent wave of violence has understandably sparked fears of a targeted campaign, *there is no credible proof that these incidents constitute a Christian genocide*. Data from neutral monitors (ACLED, CFR) show victims from both Muslim and Christian communities, underscoring the indiscriminate nature of the insecurity.

    It is equally vital to *halt the narrative that a Christian genocide is underway in Nigeria*. Allowing such a framing to persist risks deepening sectarian divisions, eroding trust in state institutions, and providing a propaganda tool for extremist elements on all sides. The danger lies not only in inflaming communal hatred but also in diverting attention and resources away from holistic security solutions toward polarizing rhetoric that serves narrow political or ideological agendas.

    Worryingly, this wrong narrative of a Christian genocide informed former President Trump’s decision to push for military action in Nigeria, a move that many Nigerians view with alarm due to its potential long term effects on Nigeria’s sovereignty. External military intervention, driven by misinformation, could exacerbate instability, empower insurgent groups, and undermine the nation’s autonomy.

    Therefore, stakeholders—government, civil society, media, and international partners—must emphasize factual, de escalatory reporting, promote interfaith dialogue, and focus on evidence based policies that address the root causes of banditry, terrorism, and communal clashes. Only by rejecting divisive narratives can Nigeria build the unity needed to confront the security crisis comprehensively and sustainably.

  • Support for domestic, sexual violence victims

    Support for domestic, sexual violence victims

    The Crime Victims Foundation Nigeria (CRIVIFON) has unveiled a new initiative named ‘Project H.E.’ to support male victims of domestic and sexual violence.

    The Project H.E. which  was the focus at the 27th anniversary of the foundation last week was launched with a renewed commitment to strengthen victims’  support systems across the country.

    The event which held at the Police Training School in Ikeja, Lagos, brought together legal practitioners, senior police officers, justice sector leaders, human rights advocates, civil society partners, and members of the media.

    CRIVIFON Founder and Executive Director, Mrs. Gloria Egbuji, said the project aimed to address a largely overlooked aspect of victim advocacy in the country and most importantly to empower men who suffer abuse from their spouse but face social stigma in reporting it. 

    “We set up the ‘Project H.E.’  because many men who come forward are actually victims, not perpetrators, and they are unable to voice it.

    “This is Nigeria, where a man who complains against his wife faces stigma,” she said.

    Egbuji, who said she  received training in Hong Kong on handling of male victims of domestic violence, explained that the project also focuses on raising awareness, counseling, and cultural dialogue to help men speak out.

    She disclosed that the foundation has already handled several male domestic violence cases using a combination of family dialogue, counseling, and temporary separation when necessary. 

    “We invite both spouses and family members to dialogue. Some cases succeed after talking and counseling.

    “In cases where the man’s life is at risk, we advise temporary separation until healing occurs. Monitoring continues even after initial interventions.

    “Some couples reconcile after separation, while others continue to receive guidance. Some turn to counseling, others to church support. The goal is to ensure they heal and regain stability,” she said.

    The CRIVIFON Executive Director further explained that  the ‘Project H.E.’  complements the foundation’s broader efforts in victims’ advocacy, through the establishment of human rights and gender desks across police commands and the promotion of children’s human rights clubs in schools.

     She said the foundation has also worked to ensure victims are heard in the legal system.

     “Previously, women and children who pursued justice often faced systemic barriers, with the state indirectly siding with perpetrators. Now, victims are given a platform to speak,” Egbuji said.

     She highlighted the impact of providing victims with a “Past Statement”, a tool that allows them to narrate their experiences and contribute to court proceedings.

    “The ‘Past Statement’ allows them to speak about their pain. They can also help in sentencing. That has made a big difference,” she added.

     Earlier in her welcome address, Egbuji, said the organisation’s journey over the last 27 years, has been defined by resilience, sacrifice, and strong partnerships focused on protecting Nigeria’s most vulnerable people.

    She said the foundation has since grown into a nationwide movement strengthened by the Nigeria Police Force, justice institutions, and thousands of volunteers.

    She listed the achievements of the foundation to include the establishment of Human Rights Desks and Gender Desks in Lagos and other police commands, an innovation which she said has transformed how victims are received and treated in police facilities across the country.

     Egbuji said: “Setting up these desks required years of sustained engagement, approvals, and collaboration with eleven successive Inspectors-General of Police, from Sunday Ehindero to the current IGP, Kayode Egbetokun. She recalled that she personally furnished the first office space allocated to CRIVIFON at the Lagos Command to ensure the project started without delay.

    “We passed through many authorisation processes and layers of scrutiny, yet we persevered,” she said.

    “Today, thousands of victims are being attended to with dignity and compassion because of those unwavering efforts.”

     The CRIVIFON Executive Director further disclosed that under her directorship, the foundation was the advocacy leader  for the Treatment of Gunshot and Accidents Victims Act 2017 ensuring that hospitals treat victims immediately without waiting for police clearance among other record breaking achievements.

    She said the foundation collaborates and has  attracted international acclamation, recognition and credibility.

    She listed some of the international partners to include World Society of Victomology (WSV), National Organisation for Victims Assistance (NOVA), USA, Victims Support London (VSL), UK and is a collaborative partner of Equitas Montreal Canada among others.

    Speaking to journalists, CRIVIFON’s Assistant Executive Director, Mr. Titus Offurum, noted the cultural stigma that often prevents men from reporting abuse. 

    “Men in Nigeria or Africa find it difficult to explain that their wife is beating them. It’s seen as shameful, so they hide and keep suffering,” he said.

    Offurum shared real-life examples to underscore the prevalence of male victimisation. 

    “We recently won a case for a 64-year-old man. Three years ago, he was cooking and cleaning, and a disagreement over a bag led to threats from his wife. He had to run to our foundation for help,” he recounted.

    The Crime Victims Foundation Nigeria (CRIVIFON) has unveiled a new initiative named ‘Project H.E.’ to support male victims of domestic and sexual violence.

    The Project H.E. which  was the focus at the 27th anniversary of the foundation last week was launched with a renewed commitment to strengthen victims’  support systems across the country.

    The event which held at the Police Training School in Ikeja, Lagos, brought together legal practitioners, senior police officers, justice sector leaders, human rights advocates, civil society partners, and members of the media.

    CRIVIFON Founder and Executive Director, Mrs. Gloria Egbuji, said the project aimed to address a largely overlooked aspect of victim advocacy in the country and most importantly to empower men who suffer abuse from their spouse but face social stigma in reporting it. 

    “We set up the ‘Project H.E.’  because many men who come forward are actually victims, not perpetrators, and they are unable to voice it.

    “This is Nigeria, where a man who complains against his wife faces stigma,” she said.

    Egbuji, who said she  received training in Hong Kong on handling of male victims of domestic violence, explained that the project also focuses on raising awareness, counseling, and cultural dialogue to help men speak out.

    She disclosed that the foundation has already handled several male domestic violence cases using a combination of family dialogue, counseling, and temporary separation when necessary. 

    “We invite both spouses and family members to dialogue. Some cases succeed after talking and counseling.

    “In cases where the man’s life is at risk, we advise temporary separation until healing occurs. Monitoring continues even after initial interventions.

    “Some couples reconcile after separation, while others continue to receive guidance. Some turn to counseling, others to church support. The goal is to ensure they heal and regain stability,” she said.

    The CRIVIFON Executive Director further explained that  the ‘Project H.E.’  complements the foundation’s broader efforts in victims’ advocacy, through the establishment of human rights and gender desks across police commands and the promotion of children’s human rights clubs in schools.

     She said the foundation has also worked to ensure victims are heard in the legal system.

     “Previously, women and children who pursued justice often faced systemic barriers, with the state indirectly siding with perpetrators. Now, victims are given a platform to speak,” Egbuji said.

     She highlighted the impact of providing victims with a “Past Statement”, a tool that allows them to narrate their experiences and contribute to court proceedings.

    “The ‘Past Statement’ allows them to speak about their pain. They can also help in sentencing. That has made a big difference,” she added.

     Earlier in her welcome address, Egbuji, said the organisation’s journey over the last 27 years, has been defined by resilience, sacrifice, and strong partnerships focused on protecting Nigeria’s most vulnerable people.

    She said the foundation has since grown into a nationwide movement strengthened by the Nigeria Police Force, justice institutions, and thousands of volunteers.

    She listed the achievements of the foundation to include the establishment of Human Rights Desks and Gender Desks in Lagos and other police commands, an innovation which she said has transformed how victims are received and treated in police facilities across the country.

    RRead Also: Nigerians expect constitution reforms that bring governance closer to them, says Kalu

     Egbuji said: “Setting up these desks required years of sustained engagement, approvals, and collaboration with eleven successive Inspectors-General of Police, from Sunday Ehindero to the current IGP, Kayode Egbetokun. She recalled that she personally furnished the first office space allocated to CRIVIFON at the Lagos Command to ensure the project started without delay.

    “We passed through many authorisation processes and layers of scrutiny, yet we persevered,” she said.

    “Today, thousands of victims are being attended to with dignity and compassion because of those unwavering efforts.”

     The CRIVIFON Executive Director further disclosed that under her directorship, the foundation was the advocacy leader  for the Treatment of Gunshot and Accidents Victims Act 2017 ensuring that hospitals treat victims immediately without waiting for police clearance among other record breaking achievements.

    She said the foundation collaborates and has  attracted international acclamation, recognition and credibility.

    She listed some of the international partners to include World Society of Victomology (WSV), National Organisation for Victims Assistance (NOVA), USA, Victims Support London (VSL), UK and is a collaborative partner of Equitas Montreal Canada among others.

    Speaking to journalists, CRIVIFON’s Assistant Executive Director, Mr. Titus Offurum, noted the cultural stigma that often prevents men from reporting abuse. 

    “Men in Nigeria or Africa find it difficult to explain that their wife is beating them. It’s seen as shameful, so they hide and keep suffering,” he said.

    Offurum shared real-life examples to underscore the prevalence of male victimisation. 

    “We recently won a case for a 64-year-old man. Three years ago, he was cooking and cleaning, and a disagreement over a bag led to threats from his wife. He had to run to our foundation for help,” he recounted.

  • PUNUKA secures landmark judgment on image rights

    PUNUKA secures landmark judgment on image rights

    Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors has secured a landmark judgment on image rights in Nigeria.

    The case is Ndidi-Amaka Odogwu v. Quilox Restaurant and Bar Limited.

    The Federal High Court held that the unauthorised use of an individual’s photograph for commercial purposes constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights to privacy and dignity as guaranteed under Sections 37 and 34(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    The case arose from the unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s image to promote a nightclub event, which falsely associated her with activities inconsistent with her personal, cultural, and religious identity.

    PUNUKA Attorneys & Solicitors successfully represented the plaintiff in the landmark case.

    The judgment shapes the development of image rights protection in Nigeria.

    The significant victory resulted from collaboration between the firm’s Media, Entertainment, Intellectual Property and Technology Practice led by Isioma Idigbe (Partner) and its Litigation Teams led by Nnamdi Oragwu (Partner).

    Read Also: Nigerians expect constitution reforms that bring governance closer to them, says Kalu

    Other team members included Adeyinka Abdulsalam (Partner), Decency Nkume (Associate), and Ogooluwa Osilesi (Associate).

    The judgment reaffirms constitutional protections for privacy and dignity and provides crucial guidance for businesses and creators on obtaining proper consent before using personal images for commercial gain.

    The decision also reflects the firm’s ongoing commitment to advancing individual rights and contributing meaningfully to the evolution of Nigerian jurisprudence.

    The full case summary is accessible at www.punuka.com.

  • Dignitaries set for The Creed awards

    Dignitaries set for The Creed awards

    A powerful assembly of legal luminaries, labour leaders, business icons, and traditional rulers will storm Abuja on November 29, 2025 for The Creed Annual Dinner & Awards Night.

    It is an annual gathering that recognises excellence in law, governance, and national service.

    The high-profile event is billed for the elegant Tropica Galeria in the Central Business District.

    It will be headlined by the Special Guest of Honour, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf of Kano State.

    Other top dignitaries include the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN); former NBA President, Augustine Alegeh (SAN), who will chair the event; Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) President, Comrade Joe Ajaero; and the President of the Abuja Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chief Emeka Obegolu (SAN), among several others.

    According to the Convener and Publisher of The Creed, John Austin Unachukwu, the Awards Night will celebrate distinguished personalities drawn from the Bar, civil service, government institutions, and traditional institutions.

    Unachukwu said the event remains true to the publication’s founding mission.

    The Creed’s mission, he noted, includes amplifying the voices and contributions of nation-builders whose work strengthens the rule of law, governance standards, and democratic institutions.

    Unachukwu said: “The Awards Night will honour outstanding achievers in public administration, governance, innovation, legislative excellence, ministerial performance, and national leadership.

    “These recognitions reflect The Creed’s core belief that strong public institutions and ethical governance are the foundation of a stable and prosperous nation.”

    This year’s edition has the theme: “Law and Society: Leadership, Infrastructural Development and the Pursuit of Good Governance.”

    Read Also: Nigerian set to break Guinness World Record in programming marathon

    The organisers say the theme underscores the central role of infrastructure, such as roads, hospitals, schools, energy systems, digital networks, and public utilities, in shaping national progress.

    Unachukwu described infrastructure as a visible barometer of governance, stressing that its quality directly affects a nation’s economic vitality, social stability, and political development.

    “For a developing country like Nigeria, rich in human and natural resources but burdened by systemic challenges, infrastructural development occupies a central role in shaping the welfare of citizens and securing the future of its fledgling democracy,” he added.

    Among other dignitaries expected are: Prof. Sebastine T. Hon (SAN), Dinner Speaker; Emir of Kano, Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi Lamido II; Emir of Lafia, Justice Sidi Bage Muhammad I (JSC Rtd.), and Asagba, Obi Prof. Chigbogu Epiphany Azinge (SAN), Asagba of Asaba.

    The organisers say this year’s Dinner & Awards Night promises an inspiring evening of intellectual reflection and national celebration, reaffirming Nigeria’s commitment to justice, infrastructure development, and deepening democratic governance.

  • NBA-LWDF to explore legal framework on inclusion, accessibility at conference

    NBA-LWDF to explore legal framework on inclusion, accessibility at conference

    Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Dr. Yusuf Tanko Sununu, and Senior Special Assistant to the President on Special Needs and Equal Opportunities, Mohammed Isah, are among dignitaries expected at the NBA-Lawyers with Disabilities Forum (NBA-LWDF) Annual Conference in Asaba, Delta State.

    Its theme is: “Beyond triumphs: Advancing inclusion, impact & leadership for persons with disabilities.”

    The two-day hybrid conference is billed for November 25 and 26 in Asaba, Delta State.

    Participants are promised a world-class experience featuring inspiring sessions, exclusive gifts, elegant conference bags, and more.

    Keynote Speaker will be the Executive Director, Brace Foundation, Dr Soibi Godwin-Clark, who will examine the topic: “From policy to practice: Driving sustainable inclusion for persons with disabilities in law and leadership.”

    The first plenary session has the sub-theme: “Breaking barriers: Legal frameworks, accessibility, and inclusion for persons with disabilities.”

    Panellists include Ayuba Gufwan, Executive Secretary, National Commission for People with Disabilities (NCPWD); David Anyaele, Chairman, Abia State Disability Commission; Prof. Cheluchi Onyemelukwe, Managing Partner, Health Ethics and Law Consulting; Ubaka Emeka Betram, Executive Director, Persons with Disabilities Action Network (PEDANET); Ufedo Tom Yakubu, Researcher, National Judicial Institute (NJI).

    Read Also: Nigeria’s insecurity crisis: A national wake-up call

    The session will be moderated by A. O. Odum (SAN) of the Seat of Wisdom Chambers.

    The second plenary session will focus on: “Leadership redefined: Empowering lawyers with disabilities to shape policy and drive change.”

    Panellists include Mrs Lois Auta, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Cedar Seed Foundation; Dr. Sununu; Akin Akintoye II (SAN); Seni Adio (SAN); and Isah.

    The session will be moderated by Dr Beatrice Shuwa, a lecturer at the Nigerian Law School.

    The showcase session: “A Peep into the Future: Vision for an inclusive Bar” will feature Lateef Akangbe (SAN), Olumuyiwa Akinboro (SAN), Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya (SAN) and Prof. Foluke Dada-Lawanson.

    The session will be moderated by Chinelo Ofoegbunam.

    Another session on “Innovations beyond triumph: Stories, technologies, and pathways transforming disability inclusion” will be presented by LawPavilion, Baba Telehealth and others, to be moderated by Tosan Mene.

  • LawPavilion unveils AI solution to speed up judgment-writing

    LawPavilion unveils AI solution to speed up judgment-writing

    ‘Tool will empower, not replace judges’

    LawPavilion, Nigeria’s leading legal technology company, has unveiled a groundbreaking domain-specific artificial intelligence solution designed exclusively to support Nigerian judges in delivering faster and equitable justice.

    The AI platform provides judges with comprehensive summaries of case materials, intelligent assessment and evaluation of evidence, suggested issues for determination, legal opinions supported by verifiable Nigerian cases and reasoning and justifications linked to precedents that can be verified directly on the platform.

    The innovation was introduced at the recently-concluded All Nigeria Judges Conference, held at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Abuja, marking a major milestone in the digital transformation of the justice system in Nigeria.

    In a compelling presentation that captured the attention of the Judicial Officers from across the nation, Managing Director of LawPavilion, Mr. Ope Olugasa, introduced LawPavilion AI (Judges’ Corner) as a transformative solution to the perennial backlog of cases challenging the Nigerian judicial system.

    “Behind each case number is a human story, a widow waiting for her inheritance, a business owner seeking redress, a citizen denied their constitutional rights,” Olugasa stated.

    “The solution to this crisis is already here. Artificial Intelligence is not the future of judicial practice; it is the present, and it is our opportunity to eliminate backlogs if we embrace it.”

    Olugasa assured the judicial officers that unlike general-purpose AI systems that have raised concerns about accuracy, LawPavilion AI is specifically trained on a verified database of Nigerian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions, Nigerian laws, regulations, and civil procedure rules.

    This specialised training ensures the system never “hallucinates” or fabricates non-existent cases—a critical distinction that addresses one of the primary concerns about AI in judicial practice.

    He explained further that the platform features robust data protection mechanisms, with all uploaded documents automatically anonymised to protect the privacy and confidentiality of sensitive case information.

    Olugasa noted that at the heart of LawPavilion AI’s capability is its sophisticated “Draft Judgment” feature, which can harmonise multiple final written addresses from counsel, pleadings, witness statements, exhibits, and other evidence. 

    “This is not about replacing judges; it’s about empowering them,” Mr. Olugasa emphasised.

    “AI will handle the laborious, time-consuming tasks of document review and legal research, freeing our judges to do what only humans can do: listen with empathy, understand nuanced arguments, weigh moral considerations, and deliver justice with wisdom and fairness.”

    Drawing on successful implementations worldwide, Olugasa highlighted how Estonia’s AI judge handles small claims in days rather than months, how India’s Supreme Court deployed SUPACE to manage case backlogs noticeable reduction in case pendency within a short period, and how the UK and Germany are leveraging AI for document review and case management.

    With Nigeria having just six judges per million citizens, far lower than other African Countries, the need for technological intervention is urgent.

    LawPavilion projects that comprehensive AI implementation could realistically reduce Nigeria’s case backlog by 30-40 per cent within three years, clearing over 600,000 cases and preventing future accumulation.

    Anticipating concerns about AI adoption, Olugasa addressed three primary fears.

    On AI hallucination, he explained how the company deployed “domain-specific, verifiable AI with a ‘human-in-the-loop’ system where although every output is expected to still be reviewed by the judges, our AI is trained to only cite actual Nigerian cases that can be verified on our platforms—no black boxes, only transparent, explainable reasoning.”

    Addressing the issue of Privacy and Confidentiality: he maintained that “Our system employs state-of-the-art encryption and data anonymisation techniques, ensuring full compliance with the Nigeria Data Protection Act.” 

    Read Also: Boko Haram vs ISWAP: Turning insurgent civil war into a Nigerian victory

    Replacement of Judges: “AI cannot and should never replace judges. Justice requires judgment, not just logic.

    ”It requires moral reasoning, empathy, and discretion—fundamentally human functions. Our Constitution vests judicial power in human beings, and the final gavel will always be in a human hand.” 

    As Nigeria’s trusted technology partner for legal and judicial innovation, LawPavilion said it continues to demonstrate its commitment to improving justice delivery and legal service in Nigeria.

    The company has consistently provided cutting-edge solutions that have transformed legal research, case management, and judicial efficiency across the country.

    Olugasa concluded with an urgent appeal, stating: “The question is not whether we can afford to adopt AI. The question is whether we can afford not to. The future is calling. The technology is ready. The need is urgent.”

    Mr. Olugasa urged every state government and Chief Judge to seize this opportunity to empower their judiciary with LawPavilion AI, ensuring that justice is not a luxury for the few but a speedy, accessible, and undeniable right for all Nigerians.

  • Kanu: Twists and turns of a decade-long trial

    Kanu: Twists and turns of a decade-long trial

    The nearly 10-year trial of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, witnessed several dramatic twists, writes Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE.

    By his final pronouncement on November 20, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja brought to a close the long-running terrorism trial of Kanu.

    The case, which began in 2015, was punctuated by repeated disruptions, withdrawals by judges, dramatic outbursts and unexpected legal manoeuvres, many of which contributed to its prolonged lifespan.

    After convicting him on all the counts, Justice Omotosho imposed life imprisonment on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 (terrorism-related offences), 20 years imprisonment (no fine option) on Count 3 (membership of a proscribed terrorist group), and five years imprisonment (no fine option) on Count 7 (unlawful importation of a radio transmitter to further Radio Biafra broadcasts).

    The judge remarked that although the Terrorism Prevention Act under which Kanu was convicted prescribes the death penalty, he chose not to impose it “as a Christian” and due to the growing unpopularity of the death sentence globally.

    He cited an admonition from Matthew 23:22-23 on the virtues of mercy.

    Nonetheless, he insisted that Kanu showed no remorse for his “atrocities”.

    First judge withdraws

    Kanu was arrested by Department of State Services (DSS) operatives in Room 303 of the Essential Airport Hotel, Lagos, on October 14, 2015.

    He was moved to Abuja and first arraigned on November 23, 2015, before a Magistrate’s Court in Wuse Zone 2, with Shuaibu Usman presiding.

    Following the filing of a six-count charge, Kanu, alongside Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, was brought before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court on December 23, 2015.

    At the mention of the case on December 23, 2015, Kanu requested to address the court before the charges were read.

    Granted permission, he announced that he had no confidence in the court’s ability to ensure justice.

    He said: “Based on information available to me, I am convinced that I will not receive a fair trial before this court…

    “I would rather remain in detention than subject myself to a trial that amounts to a perversion of justice.”

    Although prosecutor Mohammed Diri opposed his stance, Justice Mohammed agreed to withdraw from the case.

    “Justice is rooted in confidence,” he said, emphasising that a defendant had the right to raise such an objection.

    Second judge withdraws

    The case was reassigned to Justice John Tsoho, but on September 26, 2016, he also withdrew after Kanu’s lawyer, Chuks Muoma (SAN), requested that he step aside on grounds of alleged bias.

    Muoma claimed the judge acted in line with comments previously made by then-President Muhammadu Buhari about Kanu’s continued detention.

    Justice Tsoho denied bias but returned the case file to the Chief Judge, criticising the defence lawyer’s conduct as unprofessional.

    Third judge steps aside

    On September 24, 2024, Justice Binta Nyako, who had taken over the case, also returned the file to the Chief Judge after Kanu directly accused her of failing to obey the Supreme Court’s directives.

    Interrupting his lawyer, Kanu told the court: “My Lord, I have no confidence in this court anymore…

    “I ask you to recuse yourself because you did not abide by the Supreme Court’s decision.”

    Despite prosecutor Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) urging her to ignore the outburst, Justice Nyako recused herself.

    Journey to Supreme Court

    On December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the October 13, 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal barring the Federal Government from further prosecuting Kanu.

    A five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, ordered that Kanu be tried on the surviving seven counts in the original 15-count amended charge on which he was re-arraigned before a Federal High Court in Abuja.

    Kanu, shortly after he was brought back from Kenya by the Federal Government on June 27, 2021, challenged the competence of the amended 15-count charge filed against him by the prosecution.

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu: Court faults reports of attempt on Justice Omotosho’s life

    In a ruling on April 8, 2022, Justice Nyako struck out eight out of the 15 counts, leaving seven.

    Rather than submitting to trial based on the surviving seven counts, Kanu challenged the April 8, 2022 ruling at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

    He also queried the propriety of how he was brought back to the country from Kenya by the Nigerian government, alleging extraordinary rendition.

    The Court of Appeal, in its judgment on October 13, 2022, faulted the manner the Federal Government brought him back into the country.

    The Appeal Court quashed the remaining seven counts left in the 15-count charge, acquitted him and ordered his release from custody.

    The Appeal Court was of the view that the Federal Government violated the rules of engagement in the way and manner Kanu was arrested in Kenya and brought to Nigeria.

    The Court of Appeal added that the Federal Government breached international laws and resorted to self-help in its failure to file a formal extradition application against Kanu in Kenya, but chose to resort to unlawful abduction and rendition.

    Before the judgment could be executed, the Federal government applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending the determination of its appeal against the judgment, an application the Court of Appeal granted.

    It subsequently appealed the judgment at the Supreme Court, with Kanu filing a cross-appeal.

    The Supreme Court’s decision

    In its judgment on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal by Kanu.

    It reversed the October 13, 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting Kanu and held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have discharged and acquitted Kanu on the ground that the prosecution acted illegally in the manner the IPOB leader was brought back from Kenya.

    Attempt to force Justice Omotosho out

    After Justice Nyako’s recusal, Kanu attempted the same strategy on November 20, 2025, accusing Justice Omotosho of bias as the court prepared to deliver judgment.

    He shouted at the judge, prompting Justice Omotosho to briefly stand down proceedings before returning to deliver the ruling.

    Kanu filed a fresh motion seeking to halt proceedings pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of new issues he raised. He also sought bail.

    Justice Omotosho dismissed the applications and moved on to deliver judgment.

    Sacking of lawyers

    Kanu dismissed his legal teams on two occasions.

    The first was in 2023, after his lawyers, led by former Attorney-General of the Federation Kanu Agabi (SAN), publicly apologised on his behalf following a Supreme Court ruling.

    Kanu said he never authorised the apology.

    He sacked his legal team again on October 23, 2025, confirming in court that he had discharged about five Senior Advocates.

    After firing his lawyers, Kanu represented himself, filing processes in his own name despite repeated warnings from the court that he needed qualified legal representation.

    Lawyers turned consultants

    Some of his former lawyers, including Maxwell Opara, PAN Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor and Mandela Umegburu, continued to attend proceedings as “consultants,” offering him informal guidance.

    House of Reps member pleads allocutus

    When Kanu was convicted on all seven counts, he had already been removed from the courtroom due to unruly conduct and had no lawyer present to plead for leniency.

    Justice Omotosho invited Ejimakor, one of his consultants, but he declined, saying he lacked instructions.

    A House of Representatives member, Obi Aguocha, who said he represented Kanu’s constituency, stepped forward instead.

    He pleaded: “I appeal for clemency… The country is bleeding; we need peace.”

    He noted that Kanu had missed his family for years.

    Way forward

    Prominent Igbo leaders, political officeholders and legal experts have renewed calls for a political resolution to the case.

    Their messages, delivered separately, converged on one theme: a coordinated, diplomatic and high-level engagement with the Federal Government is now the most viable path to restoring peace in the Southeast.

    Strategy must replace showmanship, says Ejiofor

    Kanu’s former lawyer, Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, urged Ndigbo to replace what he described as “theatrical showmanship” with a sober, well-structured strategy.

    He warned against emotional reactions and scattered interventions.

    Ejiofor said the moment required “a sharp distinction between sober strategy and theatrical showmanship,” adding that the case had grown too complex for “unguarded proclamations” and fragmented advocacy.

    According to him, the next phase must be driven by a select team of Igbo political leaders and globally recognised legal minds.

    He said: “It has become imperative that Igbo political heavyweights and legal minds of enviable global repute immediately swing into coordinated action.”

    Ejiofor insisted that before any legal step, including filing an appeal, “this combined political–legal taskforce must visit Mazi Nnamdi Kanu… to secure his explicit mandate and align on a unified strategy.”

    He warned that filing an appeal without political groundwork would amount to a process “dead on arrival, smothered under prejudice and procedural quicksand.”

    He appealed for calm within Igbo communities worldwide, saying: “All forms of online hostility, emotional eruptions, and counterproductive declarations must cease forthwith.”

    Despite current anxieties, Ejiofor reassured supporters that “all hope is not lost… with coordinated strategy and disciplined execution, we shall ultimately prevail.”

    Otti: high-level dialogue ongoing

    Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, also called for restraint while revealing that he had been pursuing a diplomatic resolution with the Federal Government since December 2023.

    The governor noted that the mishandling of the IPOB issue from inception contributed significantly to today’s crisis.

    Otti said: “I still strongly believe that the poor management of the IPOB issue at the incubation stage created the problem we have today… hence we cannot allow it to linger.”

    He confirmed that an agreed alternative-resolution framework already exists and will now intensify following the judgment.

    “I’m happy to inform you that I have activated and will continue to work on the already agreed strategy until his freedom is secured,” he said.

    Urging calm, he cautioned politicians against exploiting the situation: “I appeal to our people to refrain from utterances and actions capable of stoking fear… and to politicians playing petty politics with Kanu’s travails to jettison the idea.

    “I want to assure our people of my unwavering resolve and commitment to genuinely solving this problem with wisdom, high-level dialogue and diplomacy, with a view to ensuring that genuine peace returns to the Southeast.”

    Bianca advocates collective engagement

    Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, who returned from an official assignment to the news, stressed the need for collective engagement by Igbo leaders rather than emotional reactions.

    “There comes a time… when there is need for calm. I therefore advise Ndigbo that such a period is now,” she stated.

    She warned against actions that could escalate the situation at home or abroad.

    Mrs. Odumegwu-Ojukwu emphasised that the only realistic route out of the crisis lies in diplomatic engagement.

    “The most effective path toward resolution of this crisis is dialogue,” she said.

    She urged governors, lawmakers, traditional rulers and business leaders to “engage with government authorities collectively” and assured that prospects remain for a solution that “reduces national anxiety and societal trauma.”

    Kalu seeks political solution

    Former Abia State Governor, Senator Orji Uzor Kanu, also called for a political solution.

    “The problem of Nnamdi Kanu is what we need to solve via a political process.

    “I have been working with the Federal Government on how to solve this issue, and nobody should question the decision of Justice Omotosho,” he said.

    Kanu: trial, intrigues, sentence

    Obi: legal processes alone not enough

    Former Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, described the conviction as a moment for national introspection.

    According to him, Kanu’s arrest and trial reflected leadership failure and neglect of genuine grievances.

    “I have always maintained that Mazi Kanu should never have been arrested,” Obi said.

    He argued that inclusive dialogue, not coercion, could have prevented the escalation of tensions, adding: “The concerns Kanu raised were not unheard of… It only required wisdom, empathy, and a willingness to listen.”

    Obi urged the Federal Government to adopt political solutions commonly used worldwide in similar conflicts.

    “Nations resort to political settlements when legal processes alone cannot serve the broader interest of peace and stability,” he said.

    Calling for unity and reconciliation, he appealed to national leaders to intervene.

    “The Presidency, the Council of State and credible statesmen… should rise to the occasion for a lasting solution.”

    Kalu: political solution still possible

    Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Okezie Kalu, said despite Kanu’s conviction, a political solution to secure his release was still possible.

    “It is now time to explore political solutions that had been hindered because the matter was before the court.

    “But now that the court has finished, it is time to intensify the request for the President’s intervention, and we are sure that the President is not averse to it.

    “We are going to get it. All hope is not lost. Our people should remain calm,” Kalu said.

    Ahamba: time ripe for clemency

    Elder statesman and legal luminary, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), said now is the appropriate time to approach President Tinubu to grant clemency to Kanu.

    The SAN noted that while Kanu has the right to appeal, the President now has the constitutional authority to pardon him.

    “So, for those who had been urging the President to release Nnamdi Kanu during the trial, now is the right time for them to do so. Mr President was not competent to do so during the trial,” he said.

    Although an appeal remains an option, he insisted: “Time is now ripe for a reasonable approach to Mr President for clemency.”

  • Conflicting orders by coordinate courts raise concern

    Conflicting orders by coordinate courts raise concern

    The Administrator of the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Justice Babatunde Adejumo, has argued that it was not unusual for courts of coordinate jurisdiction to render conflicting decisions on cases with similar facts. But lawyers argue that stakeholders should be more concerned about the impact on public trust rather than engaging in mere jurisprudential debate, writes Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE

    The recurring development, where courts of coordinate jurisdiction issue conflicting orders on cases with similar facts, has always raised concern.

    Many have consistently condemned such developments and called for sanctions.

    But last week, the Administrator of the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Justice Babatunde Adejumo, added a new perspective that sought to justify such occurrences.

    Justice Adejumo’s perspective

    Justice Adejumo, who was reacting to the controversy over the conflicting decisions by two Federal High Courts in Abuja and a High Court in Oyo State on the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), said no court of coordinate jurisdiction is bound by the decision of another.

    Justice Adejumo, the immediate past President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), said judges give judgments based on their understanding of the law and the evidence presented.

    He said the controversies generated by instances of conflicting decisions by courts were unnecessary because there are always remedies available under the law.

    Justice Adejumo said, even in what appears as the worst scenario – where two courts in the same jurisdiction give conflicting decisions – that did not mean any wrong had been committed, except it is established that an ulterior motive was involved.

    He said: “You see, in the Judiciary, respective judges give judgments according to their understanding of the law and the way they see things.

    “And, you don’t just give judgment, judgment must be based on the facts as presented to the court and, as provable with credible evidence.

    “That is why, even in the United States of America, which is believed as the oldest democracy, and where they have a judicial system that is superb, they have state courts.

    “A court in New York or Washington may deliver a judgment, and when another court in Maryland, just some few kilometres away, or New Jersey, very close to New York, may give a different opinion about the same set of facts.

    “It depends on the interpretation of the law based on the facts and evidence,” he said.

    Justice Adejumo, who said any conflict in both decisions could easily be resolved on appeal, noted: “That is why we have ladders of courts.

    “If two, three courts give conflicting decisions on the same subject matter, the aggrieved party may proceed to the Court of Appeal, which will have a better say.

    “If any of the parties is not yet satisfied, it goes to the apex court, which is the final court. And, whatever that court says on that matter settles that issue.”

    Latest case of conflicting decisions

    The most recent conflicting decisions are on the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held in Ibadan, Oyo State, between November 15 and 16.

    On October 11, Justice James Omotosho ordered the maintenance of the status quo in a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, filed by Austine Nwachukwu (PDP Chairman in Imo State); Amah Abraham Nnanna (PDP Chairman, Abia State) and Turnah George, Secretary, PDP Southsouth).

    The plaintiffs had queried the propriety of the national convention and urged the court to, among others, order the PDP to comply with its constitution and other relevant laws before it could hold a convention.

    In a judgment on October 31, Justice Omotosho ordered that preparations for the convention be put on hold pending when the PDP would comply with the provisions of its constitution, the Nigerian Constitution and the Electoral Act.

    The judge restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from monitoring the convention until the PDP complies with the relevant laws in relation to the holding of a convention.

    However, on November 5, Justice Ladiran Akintola of the High Court of Oyo State issued an ex-parte order, granting permission to the PDP to proceed with its planned convention.

    On November 11, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja issued an order of interim injunction stopping the PDP from proceeding with plans for the convention.

    The order, which was to subsist pending the determination of the substantive suit, was issued in a suit filed by former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, who claimed to have been prevented from obtaining form to contest the party’s chairman position.

    On November 13, Justice Akintola extended his earlier order, granting permission to the PDP to proceed with the convention.

    On November 14, Justice Lifu delivered judgment in the suit by Lamido and ordered the PDP not to hold the convention without Lamido’s being allowed to contest the chairmanship position.

    Read Also: Matawalle delivers Tinubu’s message to troops in Zamfara

    When judges were sanctioned

    The only known instance when judges were sanctioned for issuing conflicting decisions was in relation to the leadership dispute in the PDP in 2021.

    Within five days in August 2021, three courts in different states issued conflicting orders about the PDP national chairman’s office.

    On August 24, 2021, Justice Okogbule Gbasam of the High Court of Rivers State in Port Harcourt issued an order, restraining Uche Secondus from parading himself as PDP National Chairman.

    On August 27, 2021, Justice Nusirat I. Umar of the High Court of Kebbi State issued another order, restoring Secondus as the national chairman of the opposition PDP.

    On August 28, 2021, Justice Edem Ita Kooffreh of the High Court of Cross River State issued an interim order, restraining Secondus from resuming office as PDP National Chairman.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) was forced to wield the big stick when, after its meeting in December 2021, it announced sanctions against the three judges.

    The NJC barred Justice Gbasam from enjoying promotion for two years for failing “to exercise due diligence in granting an ex parte order in suit No: PHC/2183/CS/2021 between Ibealwuchi Earnest Alex & four others and Prince Uche Secondus & another, as there was no real urgency in the circumstances of the matter that would have required an ex parte order.”

    Justice Gbasam was also issued a warning letter to be circumspect in granting such ex-parte orders in the future.

    Justice Umar was also barred from elevation to the higher Bench for two years for his failure to comply with the law in granting an ex-parte order in suit No: KB/HC/M.71/2021 between Yahaya Usman & two others and Prince Uche Secondus & another.

    The judge was also issued a warning letter to be circumspect in granting such an order in the future.

    Justice Kooffreh was barred from enjoying promotion for five years for allowing himself to be used as a tool for “forum shopping” and abuse of court processes in suit No: HC/240/2021 between Mr Enang Kanum Wani and Uche Secondus.

    The NJC said it was evident that in granting the ex-parte order, the judge was aware of earlier orders of the High Courts of Rivers and Kebbi states, being courts of coordinate jurisdiction with his.

    The NJC issued Justice Kooffreh a warning letter to be circumspect in granting such ex parte orders in the future and placed him on its watch list for two years.

    Impact on public trust

    Lawyers, like Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), Otunba Tunde Falola and Jonathan Iyieke, said it was necessary that stakeholders should be more concerned about the effect of conflicting decisions on the reputation of the judicial system.

    Okutepa cautioned the Judiciary to be wary of the antics of politicians, whom he referred to as “majorly democratic despots and terrors.”

    He accused politicians of destroying every institution of democracy.

    The SAN said: “The destruction of these vital democratic institutions is worrying me as a lawyer.

    “I am worried that we are watching the reckless use of judicial institutions to kill democracy in the exercise of rights that are not recognised by law.”

    Referring to the latest case of the PDP national convention, Okutepa said: “One is completely at a loss at the kind of orders flying left, right and centre by Nigerian courts in sabotage of democracy and the rule of law when, from the facts, there are no party primaries in all these cases.

    “The judiciary must not be ridiculed further. The sanctity of the judiciary must be preserved. The Nigerian judiciary must not be destroyed.

    “Once it is destroyed, the hopes of Nigerians are destroyed forever.

    “Democracy is heading to a calamitous end given the despotic and thuggish approach to democracy by the majority of Nigerian politicians,” Okutepa said.

    Falola said he agreed with Justice Adejumo’s position only to the extent that there is nothing unusual about courts of coordinate jurisdiction delivering conflicting decisions on the same subject matter.

    He argued that the issue transcends mere jurisprudential debate, but touches on the erosion of public trust when citizens are confronted with contradictory judicial pronouncements.

    Falola noted that the conflicting decisions over the PDP national convention “is not too good for our democratic system.

    “Both courts are courts of coordinate jurisdiction, yet their contradictory orders have plunged the party, its members, and the larger public into a state of unnecessary and avoidable confusion.”

    Falola was of the view that conflicting court decisions in politically sensitive matters, as in this instance, are far from harmless technicalities.

    He added: “They carry significant consequences. They create uncertainty about which order ought to be obeyed.

    “They undermine the rule of law, suggesting that court orders are matters of convenience rather than binding directives.

    “They weaken internal party democracy, as political actors learn to ‘shop’ for favourable courts instead of respecting established processes.

    “When courts speak with two voices on the same issue, the public is left wondering: Which order do we obey?

    “This is dangerous for any constitutional democracy. The judiciary remains the last line of defence in any democracy.

    “When courts of coordinate jurisdictions issue conflicting orders, especially in matters impacting political stability, the resulting damage goes far beyond the immediate litigants.

    “It shakes the very foundation of public confidence in the justice system. For the sake of our democracy, the courts must speak with clarity, finality, and unity,” Falola said.

    How to stem the tide

    To Justice Adejumo, although conflicting decisions are not unusual, they could be prevented where necessary modalities are in place.

    He said the various courts could amend their rules “to provide that, for you to come to court, seeking redress, you must swear to an affidavit that, to the best of your knowledge, this issue (the subject matter of your case) has not been presented before any court of law.

    “And, if it is later discovered that you lied, you are held to be perjuring on oath and a decision to sentence is provided. So, until that is done, the situation will remain.”

    Justice Adejumo also suggested people should petition the NJC if they believe that the reason behind the conflicting decisions has an ulterior motive.

    Falola said the PDP convention episode underscores the urgent need for judges of coordinate courts to resist issuing orders that contradict final decisions already delivered elsewhere on the same subject matter.

    Stressing the need for stricter intervention from the NJC, Falola argued that it must not treat conflicting orders in political cases as routine occurrences, because such developments damage the credibility of the Judiciary as an institution.

    He also suggested the need for such cases to enjoy swift intervention by the appellate court to promptly restore order by providing a single, authoritative interpretation.

    Advocating for a long-term structural reform, Falola suggested the need for the country to revisit the overlapping jurisdiction between Federal and State High Courts, “which continues to encourage forum shopping and contradictory rulings.”

    All eyes on appellate courts

    Iyieke said that once conflicting decisions occur, the earliest decision is considered the position until a higher court sitting on appeal overturns it.

    He said: “It’s strange nowadays where many courts of the same jurisdiction, especially our high court in states and the Federal High Court, roll out different decisions on a particular matter without consideration of the earlier position of their learned colleague in the matter.

    “I think it borders on judicial rascality to the hallowed uniformity of the decision-making principle.

    “I think judges should be more prolific and tilt towards utility when making a judgment in a matter. Decision-making is primarily to calm nerves, whether in politics or otherwise.

    “I do not think it’s to aggravate and/or sponsor confusing conflicts, thereby infusing hopelessness in our society.

    “Whatever may be the position, litigants should resort to the earlier decision made against the latter.

    “Parties should also look out for a political resolution of the matter and appeal for an interpretation of the decisions made in the conflicting judgment.

    “I hazard to say that where conflict of judgment occurs and it’s discovered that the later decision is made with impunity and to cause commotion and unnecessary chaos in the political arena and our society, the judge who made that later decision should be sanctioned and, in most cases, be demoted.”

    But, for Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Dr Sam Amadi, the PDP convention remains valid and legally recognised despite earlier conflicting court rulings.

    Speaking during an interview with Arise News, Amadi said the most recent court order issued before the convention permitted the event to hold, rendering previous contradictory orders ineffective.

    According to him, the controversy surrounding the party’s leadership crisis was fuelled by what he described as INEC’s failure to act as a regulatory authority, as well as courts issuing “contradictory and unnecessary” ex parte orders.

    He argued that the convention was backed by law, noting that the latest decision from the court supported its conduct.

    “This convention has legalisation,” Amadi declared.