Nigeria’s judiciary faces persistent corruption allegations, rebutted by leaders demanding evidence, amid occasional disciplinary cases. Rare instances of judges resisting influence spark debate. Recently, Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court warned litigants and lawyers against seeking favours, reigniting discussions on judicial integrity, accountability, and responses to compromise attempts, writes Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE.
Like most human institutions, the Nigerian Judiciary is not immune to criticism.
Over the years, it has faced sustained allegations of corruption, ethical lapses, and the presence of so-called “bad eggs” accused of engaging in conduct aimed at perverting the course of justice.
Judicial stakeholders have repeatedly pushed back against these claims, insisting that sweeping accusations often lack evidential support.
The most recent pushback came from the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Memsem, who publicly challenged critics to substantiate allegations of corruption against judges.
She said: “We keep hearing of corruption among judges. Please provide evidence. That is what we need.
“Since no one has come up with evidence that we are corrupt, I know that we are not corrupt. We are doing our best,” she added on December 8, 2025, in Abuja during a special court session marking the official commencement of the Court of Appeal’s 2025/2026 legal year.
Notwithstanding such defences, there are documented cases where judicial officers have been sanctioned by the National Judicial Council (NJC) for misconduct, abuse of office, or violations of their oath. These cases, though relatively few compared to the size of the judiciary, continue to fuel public distrust.
Conversely, there are far fewer reported instances where judges publicly resist or reject overtures aimed at compromising the judicial process.
Analysts say this may be due to two factors: either such overtures are rarely resisted, or judges who resist them are often reluctant to make the matter public.
READ ALSO; Between Wike and Fubara
This context may explain the varied reactions triggered by the recent outburst of Justice Emeka Nwite of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, who openly complained in court about alleged attempts by parties in a case before him to improperly influence his decision.
Justice Nwite made the remarks on January 7 while delivering a ruling on bail applications filed by a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and two others. He warned parties and counsel against attempting to reach out to him for favours during the pendency of the matter.
Although the judge did not state whether any specific individual had contacted him, he stressed that no one could influence the outcome of proceedings before his court.
Justice Nwite said: “Before concluding, I want to admonish and warn counsel and litigants that all judges are not the same.
“When I am handling any case, please do not approach me. You can get the best lawyers in this country to do your case, but do not attempt to approach me for any help.
“I am not that type of judge. I know what God has done for me by giving me this job, and I have vowed to do it to the best of my ability.
“I have sworn before Almighty God and man that I will do my duty without fear or favour.”
Justice Nwite warned that any attempt to pervert the course of justice would be “vehemently resisted,” advising parties to focus on prosecuting their cases and, where dissatisfied, pursue their remedies through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Past example
In August 2023, the Chairman of the State and House of Representatives election petition tribunal, which sat in Kano, Justice Flora Azinge, raised an alarm of an attempt to obstruct the course of justice with financial inducement.
Justice Azinge did not disclose the identity of those behind the act, claiming that some senior lawyers arguing their petitions before the tribunal were behind moves to corrupt the system.
Justice Azinge was reported to have told a packed court how a senior member of the bar offered one of her staff N10 million for onward delivery to the tribunal.
In her words: “Money is flying, and it’s being rumoured that a staff member was given N10 million as a bribe for the panel.”
The judge warned that she would no longer tolerate any attempt to bribe judges, saying that attempts to pervert the course of justice through the back door would not be allowed in her court.
Justice Azinge was said to have, on an earlier occasion, accused a senior lawyer of asking her to provide an account to send a Sallah gift.
Was Nwite right?
Since Justice Nwite’s outburst, many, both lawyers and non-lawyers, have continued to comment, with some hailing him, while others think otherwise.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Reverend John Baiyeshea, Abuja-based lawyers Otunba Tunde Falola and Oluwole Adaja commended the judge for speaking out on the issue. But another lawyer, Chidi Odinkalu, argued that Justice Nwite did not do enough.
Baiyeshea said: “I personally salute the courage of Justice Emeka Nwite for speaking out boldly the way he did to express that, behind the scenes, so-called powerful are contacting him to influence him.
“Nigerian corruption has risen to the sky, and it is the only thriving ‘industry’ in Nigeria. The corrupt and thieves of the nation are many, powerful and have formed themselves into a cartel or mafia, who believe that they can buy anyone over with their ill-got wealth.
“Some other judges, who are less endowed with capacity and determination to resist the poisoned chalice of the corrupt cabal, would have succumbed to them,” he said.
Baiyeshea added that the best way a judge could ward off “those terribly corrupt people is for the judge to cry out the way he (Justice Nwite) did to send a clear signal that he is not one they can buy with their satanic money.
“At this stage, the judge did not mention any names (even though one of the parties is crying, moaning, and defending himself when not accused). That itself raises suspicion as to who the culprit is likely to be,” Baiyeshea said.
According to Falola, the decision by Justice Nwite to address the issue publicly has symbolic value.
He added: “The warning delivered by His lordship (Justice Nwite) underscores a recurring challenge in Nigeria’s justice system: attempts to influence judicial outcomes.
“While public admonitions are necessary, a combination of legal safeguards, strict ethical enforcement, structural reforms, and robust institutional mechanisms offers a more durable defence against attempts to pervert the course of justice.”
Falola noted that by reinforcing ethical norms, empowering disciplinary bodies like the NJC, and ensuring transparent judicial processes, “Nigeria’s Judiciary can better protect its independence and uphold the rule of law for the betterment of our country.”
Adaja noted that what Justice Nwite did was to issue a pre-emptive warning or caution to all parties in the suit not to attempt to approach him for any favours with respect to the matter before him.
He added: “Without doubt, the bold and courageous statement by the judge is commendable.”
On his part, Odinkalu faulted Justice Nwite for not identifying those behind the act he complained about, but only chose to issue threats.
He argued that a judge, who finds himself or herself in a position to make the kind of public declamations that Justice Nwite made in court, has two options – to disclose the identity of the perpetrators and subject them to sanction or to recuse himself or herself from further participation in the case.
Odinkalu added: “In this present case concerning Malami et fils, the judge was unwilling or unable to muster either. Instead, he chose to threaten consequences for a future contingency, whose occurrence, on the evidence of the current one, we are unlikely to ever hear of.
The only thing the judge managed to accomplish in this case, therefore, was to publicly advertise his availability to be nobbled.”
What other options exist for judges on Nwite’s shoes?
Law experts are of the view that, beyond speaking out about attempts to compromise the court, there are other options available to a judge who finds himself in Justice Nwite’s shoes.
According to Baiyeshea, the Judge has many options should those behind the issue complained about persist, stressing that Justice Nwite could report to security agencies so that they can put the people concerned under surveillance.
He added: “If they continue, an arrest can be made. Or the judge may, at an appropriate time, mention the name of the culprit openly.
“The judge will always weigh the options very well before adopting a particular method to oppose those offering him a bribe,” he said.
Baiyeshea argued that the truth of the matter is that corruption is a hydra-headed monster that can consume anyone, adding that “one funny (may be not so funny) thing about it is that, if a judge accepts a bribe, the same people who bribed the judge will tell some other people.
“No matter how they keep it secret, it will leak one way or the other, because the sins of those who offer and take bribes, respectively, will find them out. It is as the Bible says in (Numbers 32:23).
“It will get to the stage where the naming and shaming attitude will have to be adopted. That is the only way that the corrupt will be shamed and disgraced,” he said.
Falola noted that the Judicial Code of Conduct, which guides the conduct of judicial officers, “explicitly requires judges to avoid, not only actual impropriety, but also its appearance, including avoiding contacts that may lead to speculation of undue influence.”
He added that where inappropriate contact occurs, a judge may recuse himself/herself to preserve impartiality, while separate judicial mechanisms also exist that allow formal complaints through the internal court administrative channels.
Falola argued that court’s registries, bailiffs and security personnel have roles to play in screening those who gain access to judges’ chambers or files under established court administration protocols.
On whether a judge could penalise anyone involved in acts targeted at influencing the judicial process, Falola said it is possible within the existing legal framework in the country.e said while judges cannot unilaterally impose criminal sanctions in such cases, they can deploy their contempt power or refer anyone to relevant agencies for disciplinary measures.
Falola added: “A judge has statutory authority to punish for contempt of court, including conduct that directly undermines the administration of justice in court. This can extend to interference aimed at prejudicing proceeding.
“Litigants and lawyers, who attempt to pervert the course of justice, for example by seeking to influence a judge, can be referred for disciplinary action.”
He said while an erring lawyer could be referred to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a litigant in a similar position could be prosecuted under either the Criminal Code or the Penal Code, knowingly engaging in acts to pervert the course of justice, including bribery, influence peddling, or false pretences is a criminal offence.
On his part, Odinkalu noted that the country’s constitution makes it a human right that all courts must be ‘independent and impartial,’ adding that the Judicial Code of Conduct requires all judges to ‘preserve transparently, the integrity and respect for the independence of the Judiciary.’
He added that the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provides, among others, that judges “shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
Odinkalu argued that it amounts to a perversion of the course of justice for anyone to seek to influence a judge in the performance of his or her judicial functions.
He noted that there are many options for dealing with such cases, one of which is that the affected judge can report the matter to the police or to the Attorney-General for investigation and prosecution.
“Two, the affected judge is also endowed with powers to punish it summarily as an act of criminal contempt for which the guilty person may be sent to jail.
“Three, if the perpetrator is a lawyer, a public servant, or other regulated professional, the judge may additionally refer the conduct for disciplinary process before the mechanisms of professional sanction.
“Four, the judge could use his or her judicial bully pulpit for naming and shaming by inviting the perpetrator to allocute to or admit the facts in open court and simply reprimand thereafter.
Adaja, who cited relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, argued that extant laws in the country protect and insulate judicial officers from any attempt to influence their judicial decisions by litigants or legal representatives.
What other options?
Baiyeshea said acts of corruption must be punished.
He said: “It is because the corrupt do not get punished in Nigeria that makes corruption to thrive. Our legal system pampers the thieves. After bail is given to them, the razmataz noise of the case dies down.
“The thieves become emboldened, they even contest elections, and win. During trial, they apply to travel abroad for medical treatment when their huge stealing caused our health and infrastructural systems to be on/at ground zero. And the courts indulge them.
“The thieves are celebrated as heroes, and sadly, they become ‘role models’ of wealth and riches that people like them want to copy, and sadly, too, the school of the corrupt in Nigeria has the largest enrollment.
“Let us tackle corruption like the Japanese, Chinese, and others who see corruption as economic sabotage. Let the culprits get the death sentence or a severe sanction. This is also the case in Singapore.”
Baiyeshea regretted that, unlike elsewhere, “those who steal our commonwealth turn round to claim protection under the severely abused human rights mantra,” adding that “in Nigeria, corruption is the tragedy of the nation.”
Falola also identified other measures to further insulate judges from improper influence, which he said require enhanced structural safeguards and ethical discipline.
He argued that continuous judicial education on ethical conduct, including the avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety, ensures judges are alert to psychological and professional pressures.
Falola advocated what he described as randomised and formalised case assignment systems, which he said are capable of reducing opportunities for forum-shopping or judge-shopping practices that can signal attempts at undue influence.
He also suggested the adoption of a digital filing and case management system to reduce personal contact that might facilitate undue influence and enhance transparency of proceedings.
Falola added: “Both the judiciary and legal profession codes should have clear, publicly known consequences for actions intended to influence judicial decisions, discouraging misconduct through certainty of sanctions.
“The NJC is central to safeguarding judicial integrity. While sanctioning erring judges, the NJC must protect judicial independence by ensuring disciplinary actions are fair, non-arbitrary, and insulated from political interference. This balance will prevent both corruption and undue pressure,” Falola said.
Adaja also suggested measures to be adopted, which include the need for better protection and cover from the NJC and law enforcement agencies against the desperate litigants.
He said the NJC “must rise to the occasion by deploying the necessary machinery to protect Judges from external influence and intimidation.
“Secondly, the government is urged to create a reliable platform for Judicial Officers to report any attempt by litigants and/or legal representatives to influence their judicial decisions.
“Thirdly, deliberate and concerted steps should be taken by the government to improve the condition of living of our judicial officers to reduce external influence.
“Improved welfare for judicial officers will reduce the tendency for interference. Finally, only credible, tested, and responsible individuals with proven track records should be appointed as judges. Persons with corrupt tendencies should not be appointed or promoted to the Bench,” Adaja said.
