With the kind of incongruous decisions and “rascality” emanating from the courts in recent months, judicial analysts believe that an urgent intervention by the National Judicial Council has become imperative to prevent justice for sale, Davidson Iriekpen writes
Less than a week after the Court of Appeal lambasted Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five opposition political parties, Justice Isah Dashen of the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja has set aside its earlier judgment directing the same INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party, effectively nullifying all actions taken pursuant to the ruling.
In a dramatic U-turn, Justice Dashen, who delivered the ruling penultimate Friday, held that his December 10, 2025, judgment adversely affected the rights of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which was not joined as a party in the suit despite claiming ownership of the logo relied upon in obtaining the judgment.
The judge held that the judgment did not take into consideration other parties in the suit and ordered that the commission withdraw the registration pending review of the judgment. He held that all relevant parties must be heard before any substantive decision can be made in the matter. He also observed that certain facts were suppressed in the earlier proceedings, which justified the decision to set aside the judgment.
The judgment ordered that the substantive suit be commenced afresh, with INEC, PMP, and the NDC as parties to the case.
Recall that in December 2025, the NDC, as an association, complained of INEC’s refusal to register it as a political party, and then proceeded to the Federal High Court. The court, after hearing the arguments, upheld the party’s constitutional right to freedom of association under the Constitution. It consequently compelled INEC to register the party, an order the commission complied with.
Immediately the judgment was delivered by Justice Dashen, it set tongues wagging with many raising a plethora of questions: Can a judge, under any guise, review his or her own judgment, thereby ending up sitting as an appellate court over his/her own judgment? Why did the PMP not go to the Court of Appeal when the judgment was against it?
Ordinarily, once a court, especially a court of first instance, delivers its judgment, it is said to have performed its duty and exhausted its powers over that matter.
This is why analysts have argued that a court is not supposed to review its own judgment except in extreme circumstances, such as where it acted without jurisdiction; where a party to the suit was not properly served; or where the judgment was obtained by fraud. They noted that none of these circumstances existed to justify Justice Dashen reviewing his own judgment.
More worthy to note is the fact that PMP was not a party to the suit that earlier birthed the judgment of the court on December 10, 2025. It was the NDC that brought an action against INEC strictly on its administrative decision. At that point, the PMP did not apply to be joined in the suit.
Many are wondering why Justice Dashen did not direct that the PMP be joined as a necessary party to the suit if he had reasoned that their presence was so important ab initio, and why did they have to wait for over six months before bringing such an application?
A legal expert, Ekene Aninze, said the action of Justice Dashen raised serious questions about the limits of judicial powers and the sanctity of final judgments. He wondered what it would have taken the judge to reopen the case if he so desired, without disturbing the substance of his earlier judgment that was properly given.
He stated that the best thing the PMP could have done was to apply as an interested party in the appeal, and not to approach the court through the windows of review.
“They know that if INEC, being the only party to the suit, decides to appeal the judgment now, it will naturally raise suspicion,” he said.
Also, human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, in his reaction, faulted the court’s decision to set aside its earlier judgment, insisting that a judge lacks the power to overturn his or her own final decision. He maintained that once a court has delivered a judgment or made a final order, the judge becomes functus officio—a legal doctrine which bars a court from revisiting or reversing its own final determination except in limited circumstances provided by law.
According to the senior lawyer, any party dissatisfied with such a judgment ought to challenge it before a higher court rather than asking the same judge to reverse his own decision. He also argued that all actions taken pursuant to the earlier judgment remain legally valid and cannot be invalidated retrospectively by the same court.
The ruling may have again added to the growing list of judicial rascality of judges in recent times. It is for this reason that analysts have argued that when the history of the Fourth Republic is told in future, the ignoble role played by the judiciary will receive major spots.
In less than two decades, the judiciary have transitioned from being a beacon of hope for democratic sustenance to becoming, arguably, the greatest threat to democracy. Judicial recklessness and the growing interference of the judiciary in political matters are undermining Nigeria’s democratic principles. Furthermore, it has allowed itself to be hijacked and weaponised by politicians for their selfish interests and to the detriment of the country.
Instead of delivering judgments that restore public confidence in the judiciary and strengthen Nigeria’s electoral process, some judges, influenced through manipulation, external pressure, or compromised integrity, issue incoherent and contradictory verdicts.
This is why the National Judicial Council (NJC) needs to urgently intervene in instances of “judicial rascality” in controversial rulings delivered by lower courts. Though the council regularly investigates and disciplines judicial misconduct, observers argue that stiffer and more immediate penalties—such as outright dismissal—are needed to permanently deter the growing trend of lower courts acting outside the constitutional hierarchy.
The judiciary must not be allowed to undermine Nigeria’s democratic process. The time to stop judicial rascality in the polity is now. The NJC must take decisive action to restore public trust in the judiciary.
It is against this backdrop that the presidential candidate of the NDC, Peter Obi, while delivering a keynote speech at the memorial of late Justice Anthony Aniagolu in Enugu, recently, said the judiciary was the biggest threat to the nation’s democracy — and not the electoral umpire. He said justice in Nigeria does not only “goes to the highest bidder”, but has become “commodified.”
“Nigeria has become a country where anything goes. There is no rule of law, and there is almost no judiciary. Because the judiciary has become commercialised and depends on how much one pays, it has become difficult to get true justice in the judiciary,” he said.