Conflicting Court Orders Erode Trust in Nigeria’s Judiciary — NBA Warns

Conflicting court orders emerging from recent disputes over the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) national convention have sparked sharp criticism from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which warns that such judicial contradictions seriously undermine public trust in Nigeria’s justice system.

The nation witnessed a controversial legal battle ahead of the PDP’s November 2025 convention in Ibadan, Oyo State, where courts delivered divergent rulings on the same issue. Justice James Omotosho and Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja issued restraining orders preventing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or supervising the convention’s outcome. These injunctions stemmed from complaints by aggrieved PDP members, including former Jigawa State governor Sule Lamido, who argued procedural violations and exclusion from the nomination process.

In stark contrast, Justice A. L. Akintola at the Oyo State High Court in Ibadan granted an interim order permitting the convention to proceed as scheduled, barring interference with the party’s timetable and directing INEC to attend and monitor the event. This contradictory judicial stance threw the country into confusion, as two courts of equal rank issued opposing orders on the same matter.

Reacting to this situation, NBA President Afam Osigwe (SAN) described the occurrence as unacceptable and damaging to judicial credibility. He emphasized that conflicting orders from courts not only confuse the public but seriously erode confidence in the justice system, risking turning it into a “mockery.” Osigwe questioned how citizens were to comply with contradictory rulings and warned that courts must be cautious not to issue orders that could destabilize political processes or suggest that justice is available to the highest bidder.

ADVERTISEMENT

This incident draws attention to a broader challenge faced by the Nigerian judiciary—the persistence of conflicting judgments by courts of coordinate jurisdiction. The National Judicial Institute (NJI) has noted that such discrepancies are somewhat expected, given how different judges interpret facts and evidence. However, the NBA insists that courts should exercise greater caution and coordination to avoid such detrimental conflicts, emphasizing the critical role of appellate courts in resolving these issues definitively.

The PDP proceeded with its convention amid heavy security despite the restraining orders from Abuja courts, signaling a potential erosion of judicial authority when conflicting court directives create legal uncertainty. The NBA calls for reforms to enhance judicial accountability, coordination, and public trust, underscoring the necessity for consistent, clear rulings to uphold the integrity of Nigeria’s legal system and democratic processes.

This controversy highlights the urgency for a unified judicial approach, reinforcing the principle that courts must dispense justice impartially and provide clarity to the public to maintain the rule of law and political stability ​.