There was a time when the pronouncement of a judge brought closure. Whether celebrated or condemned, court judgements carried an aura of finality because they were presumed to be products of reason, law and impartiality. Today, that confidence appears to be steadily evaporating.
With less than seven months to the 2027 general election, Nigeria’s judiciary is finding itself at the centre of an uncomfortable national conversation. Rather than merely interpreting the law, the courts have increasingly become decisive players in the country’s political contest, determining who leads political parties, who gets registered, who remains on the ballot and, in some instances, who survives politically.
The consequence is a growing perception that the courtroom has become another political arena, where litigation has replaced negotiation and judicial pronouncements have become as fiercely contested as election results.
For many Nigerians, what should be the last hope of the common man is gradually becoming, in the words of critics, a source of confusion.
A judiciary under the political spotlight
Political disputes have always found their way to the courts. But the frequency, scale and implications of recent judicial interventions have raised fresh concerns about the health of Nigeria’s democracy.
Every major political realignment ahead of the 2027 elections appears to have produced a corresponding legal battle.
Hardly a week passes without another court issuing an order affecting the fortunes of a political party, its leadership or its legal existence. In several instances, conflicting judgments from courts of coordinate jurisdiction have only compounded the uncertainty.
Instead of providing clarity, the judiciary is increasingly being accused of muddying the political waters.
Legal scholars describe the trend as the “judicialisation of politics”, a situation where political contests that should ordinarily be resolved through democratic institutions migrate into courtrooms. While judicial intervention is constitutionally legitimate where rights are threatened or laws violated, many observers believe Nigerian politicians have become overly dependent on judges to settle what are essentially political disagreements.
The result is a judiciary carrying an ever-expanding political burden and facing unprecedented public scrutiny.
The NDC and ADC controversies
Nothing illustrates the growing concern better than the recent legal battles involving the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The NDC’s legal journey has become a symbol of judicial inconsistency. An earlier judgement of the Federal High Court had directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the political party, creating what appeared to be a new platform for emerging political forces ahead of the elections.
Then came a dramatic reversal. Last week, a Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja set aside that same judgement, ruling that all interested parties had not been heard before the original order was granted. The effect was immediate. A court that had opened the door to the party’s registration effectively shut it again.
The reversal generated outrage among opposition politicians and constitutional lawyers, many of whom questioned how a trial court could revisit what they considered a final decision without appellate intervention.
To many Nigerians, the legal arguments mattered less than the optics. How could the same judicial system produce two entirely different outcomes on the same issue within such a short period?
The ADC has found itself fighting an equally complicated legal war. In June, the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered INEC to deregister the ADC and four other political parties, relying on constitutional provisions relating to electoral performance.
The party immediately rejected the ruling and headed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the judgment threatened political pluralism.
As if that was not enough, another legal battle erupted within the party itself over its leadership structure.
A faction challenged the legitimacy of the David Mark-led leadership after the former Senate President assumed a leading role in the party.
Although the Federal High Court eventually dismissed the suit and imposed costs on the plaintiffs for abusing court process, the episode reinforced public perception that almost every significant political development in Nigeria now requires judicial validation.
To ordinary citizens, the message appeared simple: political parties now survive as much in courtrooms as they do among voters.
Beyond the NDC and ADC
The controversies surrounding both parties are only the latest chapters in a much longer story.
Over the last decade, Nigerian courts have repeatedly determined governorship elections, legislative seats, party primaries and internal leadership disputes.
From Rivers to Kano, from Edo to Plateau, from Zamfara to Bayelsa, politically consequential judgments have shaped governments as profoundly as elections themselves.
The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, declared candidates winners despite their finishing second at the polls, nullified elections over technical grounds, or interpreted constitutional provisions in ways that dramatically altered political outcomes.
These powers are constitutionally recognised. Yet every controversial judgment further fuels public suspicion that politics is increasingly being won in court rather than at the ballot box.
The implications are significant. Political actors now devote enormous financial and legal resources to litigation, sometimes treating election tribunals as extensions of campaign strategy rather than mechanisms for resolving genuine legal grievances.
The National Judicial Council under pressure
As questions mount over controversial judgments, attention has inevitably shifted to the National Judicial Council (NJC), the constitutional body responsible for disciplining judicial officers.
The Council has sanctioned judges in the past, including suspensions, compulsory retirements and dismissals for misconduct.
More recently, it suspended judges over misconduct and queried hundreds of judicial officers over poor performance and delayed delivery of judgements.
Yet many lawyers and civil society organisations argue that such interventions remain too slow and too limited to deter misconduct.
Critics say controversial judgments rarely trigger prompt investigations, while disciplinary outcomes are often perceived as inadequate compared to the gravity of public concerns.
The issue, they argue, is not simply about punishing judges. It is about reassuring Nigerians that judicial accountability is real, transparent and impartial. Without visible accountability, every controversial judgement further chips away at institutional credibility.
Peter Ameh: ‘Something is fundamentally wrong’
Among the strongest critics of recent developments is former national chairman of the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), Peter Ameh.
Reacting to the Lokoja judgement affecting the NDC, Ameh argued that the ruling exposed deep institutional weaknesses within the judiciary. According to him, the issue extends beyond allegations of executive interference.
“Something is seriously and fundamentally wrong with the integrity of the court decision. This is no longer just about executive interference in judicial affairs but deep system rot within the judiciary itself.”
Ameh, who also serves as acting national chairman of the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP), said the judgement raises profound questions about the consistency, integrity and finality of judicial decisions.
His comments echoed concerns increasingly shared across legal and political circles, that judicial credibility itself has become part of Nigeria’s democratic debate.
Politicians are not blameless
The judiciary’s growing political role is also a reflection of failures elsewhere. Internal democracy within political parties has weakened considerably.
Party primaries routinely end in litigation. Leadership disputes quickly find their way to court. Aggrieved politicians often seek ex parte orders rather than political compromise.
Consequently, judges are frequently compelled to resolve disputes that stronger party institutions should have settled internally.
This has transformed the judiciary into an unwilling referee in virtually every major political contest. The more politics depends on judges, the greater the pressure on judicial independence.
The road to 2027
As the country approaches another election, these developments carry profound implications.
Disputes over party primaries, candidate nominations, defections and electoral procedures are inevitable.
If confidence in judicial neutrality continues to decline, post-election litigation could become even more divisive.
Losing parties may reject judgments not because they disagree with the law but because they no longer trust the institution delivering it. That would represent a dangerous weakening of one of democracy’s most important pillars.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp