Editorial
One of the major problems facing the Nigerian judiciary today is the issue of conflicting judgments,which the courts – especially the High Courts – seem to deliberately indulge in. The High Courts,both Federal and State with coordinate jurisdiction, have in recent times created more confusion than solutions to litigations brought before them. By their conduct, they tend to give the impression that justice is subject to favouritism, nepotism, or for the highest bidder.
When courts of equal standing deliver contradictory decisions on the same issue, the law stops speaking with one voice. In Nigeria, this has become too common. In 2023, one Federal High Court held that the Independent National Electoral Commission must transmit results to IReV, while another said transmission was optional. In 2024, two courts in different states issued opposing orders on who was the legitimate chairman of a political party. The same scenario has continued to play out almost on a monthly basis in 2026. Each judge claimed that he acted within jurisdiction, but the public saw a judiciary speaking in tongues. That is not how a rule-of-law system survives.
Conflicting judgments erode public trust faster than any political speech. Citizens look to the courts as the final arbiter. When the arbiter gives two answers, litigants shop for the forum they like, not the law they owe. The phenomenon of “forum shopping” has turned some divisions of the Federal and State High Courts into destinations for favourable orders. By the time the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court corrects the record, weeks of chaos have passed, political parties have split, and governments have acted on orders that will later be voided.
The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) anticipated this problem. Section 6 vests judicial power in a hierarchy, with the Supreme Court at the apex. The doctrine of “stare decisis” binds lower courts to follow higher courts, and courts of coordinate jurisdiction are expected to avoid clashes.
In practice, these rules are honoured more in breach. Part of the reason is workload. Judges face thousands of files, and election and political cases are often filed simultaneously in Abuja and various State Divisions. Without a central system to flag similar matters, duplication and conflict become inevitable.
Technology offers a straightforward fix. The National Judicial Council(NJC) should operate a live case-matching portal that automatically flags suits with identical parties, subject matter, and reliefs filed in different divisions. Once flagged, the Chief Judge of the relevant court can consolidate the cases or transfer them to a single judge.
The Judiciary Information Technology Policy 2021 already lays the groundwork for e-filing and case management. What is missing is mandatory cross-divisional integration and enforcement. A suit filed in Rivers State,for instance, should be visible to a judge sitting in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)before an ex-parte order is granted.
Practice Directions are another tool the judiciary underuses. Before the 2027 election cycle, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court should issue binding Practice Directions on recurring issues: the status of IReV, the treatment of BVAS evidence, the standard for over-voting, and the scope of pre-election matters. Clear, published rules reduce the incentive for litigants to seek contradictory orders. They also protect judges, who can point to a national standard rather than rely on ad-hoc reasoning under pressure.
Discipline matters as much as procedure. The NJC must act swiftly when judges issue orders that blatantly disregard binding precedent. A public reprimand, suspension, or recommendation for removal sends a signal that judicial independence does not include independence from the law. At the same time, the NJC should protect judges who resist pressure and follow precedent. Independence without accountability becomes license, and accountability without protection becomes intimidation.
Lawyers bear responsibility, too. Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and counsels who file parallel suits in multiple courts to secure conflicting orders undermine the administration of justice. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee should treat such conduct as professional misconduct. Clients may want every possible angle, but the Bar’s duty is to the court and the rule of law first. A Code of Conduct amendment that expressly prohibits duplicative filings on the same cause of action would help.
Transparency can also reduce suspicion. When a judge grants an ex-parte order in a political matter, the order, supporting affidavit, and reasons should be published on the court’s website within 48 hours. Sunlight does not solve every problem, but it deters abuse. The United Kingdom (UK ) and Kenya have moved toward open publication of interim orders in high-profile cases. Nigeria can adopt the same practice without compromising national security or personal privacy.
Training and specialization will equally help. Commercial, tax, and election matters require different technical knowledge. Establishing dedicated divisions with judges who develop expertise reduces inconsistent reasoning. A judge who hears 50 election petitions in a cycle will understand the Electoral Act and its amendments better than one who sees one every four years. Specialization does not guarantee uniformity, but it narrows the scope for accidental conflict.
*Nigeria Horn* opines that the judiciary must lead a public conversation about what uniformity means. It does not mean robotic rulings. It means that similar facts produce similar legal outcomes, with differences explained in reasoned judgments. When the Supreme Court departs from its own precedent, it should say so openly and explain why. Clarity builds legitimacy, and legitimacy is what keeps people off the streets when they lose a case.
Streamlining conflicting judgments is not a cosmetic reform. It is a test of whether Nigeria’s judiciary can function as one system rather than 36 disconnected courts. The 2027 elections will test this again. If the bench enters that season with a unified case management system, clear Practice Directions, and swift discipline for forum shopping, it will earn the confidence it needs to decide hard cases. If not, the gavel will keep sounding, but fewer people will listen.
