With Nigeria Constantly Under the Injustices of Courts and Politicians, Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts? -By John Egbeazien Oshodi

Dirty Ways of Federal Might and State Governance Challenges: Politicians Playing Ball with Judges, Seemingly Manipulating Justice, and Igniting Public Suffering in Edo, Rivers, Kano, and Beyond

In Nigeria, the judicial system operates under a centralized framework inherited from British legal traditions, which has led to the accumulation of considerable power in the hands of individual judges. This centralization is highly susceptible to manipulation, raising significant concerns about the judiciary’s independence. This vulnerability is particularly apparent in regions such as Edo, Rivers, and Kano, where legal disputes often involve judges colloquially known as “Abuja judges.” These judges, usually based in the capital but presiding over cases across various states, have garnered a reputation for their alleged connections with political entities, seemingly manipulating judicial outcomes to align with specific political interests.

The term “Abuja judges” refers to a subset of the judiciary perceived to be particularly vulnerable to political pressure, compromise, and influence. While not all judges are implicated in such practices, there is a widespread belief, supported by statements from insiders past and present, that truly impartial judges are in the minority within this group. Often, these judges are seen more as components of a broader political mechanism rather than as independent arbiters of justice. Their rulings are frequently suspected of being driven more by political motives than by legal precedents or solid evidence, casting a long shadow over the reliability of federal courts.

A notable example of judicial overreach can be seen in Edo State, where the Federal High Court annulled a gubernatorial primary due to the wrongful exclusion of 378 delegates, revealing significant procedural flaws. This decision not only highlighted the overreaching power of federal judicial authority but also its potential to infringe upon state autonomy. The involvement of “Abuja judges” in this case was apparent, with the decision seemingly influenced more by political considerations than by the foundations of law. This incident raises critical questions about the extent to which state governments can or should rely on federal courts perceived to be under the sway of politically compromised judges.

This situation prompts a deep and unsettling question: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?” This question underscores profound frustrations with a judicial system where crucial decisions that impact state governance are made by judges who may not be fully committed to judicial principles. The phenomenon of “Abuja judges” symbolizes a broader critique of a judiciary that appears deeply entangled with the political elite, thus undermining the essential pillars of judicial independence and accountability.

In Edo State, the Federal High Court’s annulment of a gubernatorial primary due to the exclusion of numerous delegates highlights severe procedural issues. This action, while adhering to the letter of the law, sparked debates about the overreach of federal judicial power and its potential to undermine state autonomy. Such instances cast doubt on the federal courts’ role and raise the question: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?”

The dynamics in Rivers State further illustrate the judiciary’s substantial impact on state politics. The appellate court’s decision to overturn a prior judgment regarding assembly members who switched political allegiances underscores the judiciary’s ability to sway state-level political dynamics. This raises serious questions about the judiciary’s independence from political influences and the complex interactions between different government levels, leading us to ponder: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?”

In Kano, the intervention by the Federal High Court in local legislative affairs underscores the delicate balance of power between the judiciary and executive branches. While the court’s decision to uphold certain laws yet strike down executive actions non-compliant with judicial directives illustrates its role in checking executive overreach, it also highlights political influences that seem to compromise this role. This situation prompts the recurring inquiry: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?”

The intervention of the Federal High Court in local legislative matters starkly highlights the delicate balance between judicial authority and executive power. This involvement also exposes broader issues within the Supreme Court, where an emphasis on technicalities often obscures the substantive merits of cases, resulting in public distress and demands for justice. This recurring scenario compels us to question, “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?”

The apparent manipulation of judicial outcomes by political entities, facilitated by some senior lawyers with the title SAN (Senior Advocate of Nigeria) who may not uphold the highest ethical standards, not only undermines the integrity of the legal system but also inflicts deep psychological distress on the populace. This erosion of trust in key democratic institutions leads to widespread feelings of helplessness and disenchantment, potentially inciting social unrest as individuals feel increasingly alienated from governance mechanisms. Each incident of perceived manipulation brings us back to the pressing question: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?”

Furthermore, politicians’ strategic interactions with judiciary members at social events can subtly erode judicial independence. These engagements, though superficially benign, often serve to establish networks of influence that compromise judicial impartiality, blurring the lines between professional duties and personal or political relationships. This disturbing trend prompts us to continuously question: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?” This ongoing debate underscores the need for a critical reassessment of the structural and functional dynamics of Nigeria’s judicial system, urging a reconsideration of the state’s engagement with federal courts that seem increasingly influenced by external pressures.

These pervasive manipulative practices contribute to significant developmental stagnation and exacerbate instability. As the reliability of judicial processes comes into question, the resulting uncertain political climate severely deters investment and hampers economic growth, deepening public disillusionment and disenfranchisement. This dire situation brings us repeatedly back to the pivotal question: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?”

Addressing these entrenched issues requires substantial reforms aimed at enhancing judicial independence and decentralizing political power. The establishment of state policing and the reform of judicial and electoral systems are critical steps toward diminishing the disproportionate influence of centralized powers and promoting fair governance. This continuous struggle for reform reinforces the ongoing inquiry into whether state governments should continue participating in federal courts, which seems to be fundamentally compromised.

The persistent issues surrounding “Abuja judges” not only challenge the credibility of the judiciary but also pose a significant threat to the democratic processes and governance in Nigeria. As such, there is an urgent need for systemic reforms aimed at enhancing judicial independence and ensuring that judges can operate without undue political interference. Proposed reforms might include changes in the appointment and oversight processes for judges and efforts to increase transparency and accountability within the judiciary. Such reforms are vital for rebuilding public trust in the judicial system and for the healthy functioning of Nigeria’s democracy. These efforts are crucial if Nigeria is to achieve a truly decentralized governance structure that reflects the democratic ideals it aspires to uphold, moving away from the shadow of centralized power that currently defines its judicial landscape.

The persistent judicial and political challenges represent a crucial juncture for Nigeria’s future. Without a dedicated and transparent approach to these issues, the risk of descending into greater authoritarianism remains substantial. It is imperative for all stakeholders to engage deeply and constructively to forge a path toward sustainable democracy and genuine rule of law, nurturing a society that truly reflects the democratic ideals it aims to uphold. The repeated questioning of state participation in federal courts serves as a clarion call for radical change, urging a comprehensive reevaluation of engagement with a judicial system increasingly viewed as flawed.

This recurring dilemma compels us to consider a crucial question: “Has the Time Come for State Governments to Stop Participating in Federal Courts?” If state governments were to withdraw from federal judicial systems, particularly those influenced by the compromised integrity of ‘Abuja judges,’ the path forward remains complex. The potential solution may not reside in finding alternatives within the existing judicial framework, which is perceived as flawed, but rather in reinforcing self-governance. This approach would be particularly vital for administrations led by governors committed to the welfare of their people, rather than to politically motivated judicial outcomes.

Such a radical shift could drive a critical reevaluation of the national judicial system. By stepping away from federal courts, states could catalyze the essential reforms needed to restore integrity and trust in the judiciary. This strategic withdrawal, although drastic, might serve as a powerful catalyst for the substantial changes necessary to ensure that the judiciary operates as a truly independent and impartial body.

Embracing this approach could redefine interactions between state and federal judicial authorities, potentially setting a precedent for significant structural change. By focusing on local governance and minimizing reliance on a possibly corrupt federal system, states could forge a path toward more transparent and accountable governance, fundamentally shifting the dynamics of judicial and political power in Nigeria.

Moreover, the role of the Nigerian media, particularly the print media, which is often perceived as being as corrupt as the judiciary, cannot be overlooked. Much like certain segments of the judiciary, a portion of the media tends to produce headlines that favor political narratives, portraying parties in ways that suggest they have prevailed in legal battles, regardless of the actual outcomes or the justice of the cases. This practice only deepens public mistrust and confusion, as the media fails to provide a clear and unbiased account of what transpired in court.

In light of these compounded issues, a drastic shift such as boycotting federal courts could compel the necessary reforms. This could serve as a powerful catalyst for significant changes, not only within the judiciary but also within the media landscape. By challenging both of these powerful institutions to reform, states could ignite a broader movement for transparency and integrity that might ultimately lead to a more just and equitable system. Such a bold move, though filled with uncertainties, could force the nation to confront the need for deep structural change, potentially redefining governance and accountability in Nigeria.

John Egbeazien Oshodi

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at Weldios University, Nexus International University, and Walden University. John.Oshodi@mail.waldenu.edu