Conflicting orders and ex parte injunctions by judges of courts with coordinate powers and jurisdiction in same matters, especially politically sensitive cases have been a source of discourse over time; the recent happenings in Rivers State have, however, made the issue a cause for concern. YEJIDE GBENGA-OGUNDARE and SUNDAY EJIKE report that legal practitioners, while holding a consensus that it is bad for the integrity of the judiciary, however, have diverse reasons for such happenings and why judges cannot be blamed.

The conflicting court orders that arose from the local government election in Rivers State from the Federal High Court and the Rivers State High Court have continued to elicit mixed reactions among legal practitioners in Nigeria. While there was a consensus that conflicting orders are not good for the nation’s judiciary and the democracy, some hold that in spite of this, the judiciary cannot be blamed for ruling on facts before it.

It will be recalled that Justice I. Igwe of Rivers State High Court ordered the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) to conduct the forthcoming local government elections in the state, using the 2023 voters’ register compiled by INEC and mandated the Nigeria Police Force, and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Force to provide necessary protection during the election process while Justice Peter Lifu of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, six days before the conduct of the Rivers State local government election, restrained INEC from releasing voters’ register to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission, (RSIEC), to conduct the October 5, 2024 local

Justice Igwe in his September 4, 2024 ruling, said the defendants are bound by Section 7 (1) of the Constitution and Section 5 (A) of the RSIEC Law Number 2 of 2018 to make provisions and conduct the local government polls within the shortest possible time, especially following the expiration of the tenure of the former elected officials on June 17.

The court also cited as a necessity, the recent decision of the Federal Government mandating states without democratically elected local governments to do so within three months, following the judgment of the Supreme Court on local government autonomy. The Court urged that all necessary arrangements be made to ensure the conduct of the election on October 5, 2024, as announced by RSIEC.

Justice Lifu on his part, six days before the conduct of the election, restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), from releasing voters’ registers to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission, (RSIEC), to conduct the local government election in the state.The court also barred the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Department of the State Service (DSS) from participating and providing security for the conduct of the local government area election.

Justice Lifu issued the order while delivering judgment in a suit brought before him by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging the legality or otherwise of the processes leading to the fixing of October 5, 2024 for the election.

The police complied with the Federal High Court order and discarded that of Rivers State High Court, leading to controversy and widespread criticisms, with stakeholders condemning the act and warning of dire consequences for the polity.

Former president Goodluck Jonathan while reacting to the development called on political actors, security agencies, and judiciary to avoid actions that could escalate the ongoing political tension in Rivers State, expressing concern about the political situation in the state and urging all parties to prioritise peace and the stability of democracy.

“The political happenings in Rivers State over the past few days are a cause for serious concern for everyone, especially lovers of democracy and all actors within the peace and security sector of our nation,” he said.

He further called on the National Judicial Council to take decisive action against the proliferation of conflicting court orders, particularly those involving concurrent jurisdictions as unchecked judicial interference could damage the judiciary’s credibility and undermine democracy.

He said the proliferation of conflicting court orders is ridiculing the judiciary and derailing democracy.

“I am calling on the National Judicial Commission (NJC) to take action that will curb the proliferation of court orders and judgments, especially those of concurrent jurisdiction giving conflicting orders.

“This, if not checked, will ridicule the institution of the judiciary and derail our democracy,” Mr Jonathan said in a statement posted on his X handle.

Also, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) expressed deep concern over the increasing issuance of frivolous court orders and ex parte injunctions by judges, particularly in politically sensitive cases, urging the National Judicial Council (NJC), to immediately sanction judicial officers involved in the actions, warning that such practices could jeopardize Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

HURIWA said this mirrors Nigeria’s troubled political history and threatens the stability of its democratic processes, urging the National Judicial Council, NJC, to immediately sanction judicial officers involved in the actions and warning that such practices could jeopardize Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

It highlighted that many of these orders were tainted by allegations of bribery, which, according to the group, further eroded public trust in the judiciary.

HURIWA’s National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, in the statement, warned that the judiciary was at risk of becoming a tool for political manipulation, with corrupt judges contributing to the erosion of democratic order.

“The judiciary must not be reduced to a pawn in political games,” Onwubiko stated.

Legal practitioners speak

Speaking with Nigerian Tribune on the developments, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Yomi Alliyu said it is unfair to condemn Federal Court judges for their orders as they only ruled on what was submitted before the court, adding that Supreme Court never held that elections to local government councils should be held in violation of extant laws of the land.

According to him: “Judgments of courts must be read before passing comments. It is unfair for APP who made press conference in Abuja along with the emergency NGOs to condemn Justices Tsoho (the Chief Judge); Lifu and Omotoso of the Federal High Court for deciding cases on the basis of the evidence before them simply because the judgment was in conflict with that of Rivers State High Court; the reputation of these FHC judges go before them as incorruptible, apolitical, impartial and very thorough in their decisions contrary to assertions and innuendoes of these politicians at the said press conference.

“It is on record that almost 99 percent of the previous decisions of these noble judges in complex cases were upheld by appellate courts. It is calling a dog a bad name to hang it to say that their decisions were against the Supreme Court judgment on the autonomy of local governments in Nigeria. This is nothing other than appeal to sympathy! The Supreme Court never held that elections to LGs should be held in violation of extant laws of the land. Rational people should understand why a State High Court decision will favour the State Government and be in conflict with that of the FHC, maybe the problem is Wike being a minister too.

“The worst scenario is the NBA taking position that apparently condemned FHC judges who are incapacitated in defending themselves. They can only be seen and not heard. The Police can also, in no way be condemned as long as they have a judgment supporting their stand. However, they have an innate power to maintain law and order in Rivers State. The actors are to ensure that there is peace to prevent police from using force in maintaining peace in Rivers State by use of reasonable force.”

Also speaking, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) stated that “the practice is extremely wrong and has brought the justice delivery machinery to an all-time low. The problem can be addressed with technology. All decisions; be it rulings or judgments should be automatically uploaded to a platform where judges must cross-check before handing down decisions. Again those in charge of allocation of cases to judges must also be cautious, they must not assign cases on the same subject matter to different judges. Lastly, the judiciary must rebrand so as to be fit for purpose. The judiciary should re-establish itself as existing for all of us. Our democracy is very much under stress.”

Reacting to the development, a professor of law, Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said, the development must be fought frontally as it has the capacity to derail the country’s democracy, adding that giving conflicting judgments by two courts of coordinate jurisdiction has become a worrisome development that must be fought frontally.

According to him, lawyers and judges are complicit in the infamous mantra. He further noted: “It becomes difficult to know what judgment to follow since people involved may decide to pick and choose which one favours them. That has just played out in Rivers State.”

A legal practitioner and Vice President of the African Bar Association (West African Region), Dr. Samson Osagie said there are no conflicting court orders in the case of the Rivers State local government election, adding that “what happens is that parties to political disputes abuse the processes of court by filing actions in different jurisdictions of the courts in order to obtain favorable judgments or orders.”

According to him, when a court is confronted with a particular set of facts it deals with those facts on the basis of the applicable law without knowing that those same sets of facts have been twisted by other parties before a different court, usually with coordinated powers and jurisdiction who also deal with same matter on the basis of law and on one matter, it will be found that different courts had made orders.

“The solution to this despicable abuse of court processes by litigants and their lawyers is to insist that matters arising from a particular jurisdiction should be heard in that jurisdiction rather that a matter in Asaba for instance taken to Federal High Court in Lagos for hearing.

“What happened to the Federal High Court in Asaba when the issues in contention relates to the action of the government of Delta State or any of its agency? This method of shopping for forum by litigants and lawyers should be seriously sanctioned by courts and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) in order to bring some sanity,” he said.

Osagie further said that judges should also be wary of accepting to adjudicate on matters emanating from territorial jurisdictions outside their own territorial jurisdictions. In this way, he said, cases on same facts are likely to be consolidated by same court and judgment delivered one way or the order without the possibility of two different courts of coordinate jurisdictions hearing same matter and making varying orders.

Abuja based legal practitioner, Ugochukwu Osuagwu on his part said “I think it’s all about corruption. NJC should start sanctioning some of these judicial officers if they are found to be corrupt. Otherwise, I don’t see why Federal High Court should handle matters concerning state election being organized by state agencies and not federal agencies in contrast to Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. If the NJC should sit up by imposing sanctions, all these things will stop.”

Also speaking, Barrister Foluso Olapo stated that “even though there are extant laws guiding elections in Nigeria, but the electoral processes are usually fraught with irregularities. Unfortunately, these are compounded by the courts. For instance, I cannot fathom why a Federal High Court would assume jurisdiction on a local government election which is an exclusive reserve of state governments’ neither do I understand the conflicting orders being churned out of these courts. If care is not taken, the judiciary may be knelling the death bell of democracy in Nigeria”

A former chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association, Ikeja, Dave Ajetomobi, on his part, stated that; “The situation is reflection of how much of a problem Nigeria is. If the NJC fails to wield the big stick, one judge will give order that Tinubu can no longer be President and another one will retain him, while the third will claim that his election is not legal.”