DISCORDANT TUNES OF JUSTICE: A New Musical Refrain in the Temple of Justice

By Lanre Ogundipe

Every institution has its own language. The legislature speaks through laws. The Executive speaks through policies and implementation. The judiciary speaks through its judgments. It is this judicial voice that gives life to the Constitution and confidence to the rule of law.

But what happens when that voice begins to speak in conflicting tones?

What happens when courts of coordinate jurisdiction, established under the same Constitution and sworn to uphold the same laws, issue contradictory orders on the same subject matter? What should the ordinary citizen think when one court restrains an action while another court, with equal authority, authorises it? Which order should be obeyed? Which judge truly speaks for the law?

These are no longer theoretical questions. They have become recurring features of our judicial landscape.

The Temple of Justice is expected to resonate with harmony. Judges may differ in reasoning, and appellate courts may legitimately reverse lower courts. That is the essence of judicial development. But courts of coordinate jurisdiction are not expected to sing different songs over the same dispute. They are not appellate courts over one another. When they issue conflicting orders on identical issues, the law ceases to appear certain, and justice begins to sound discordant.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nothing weakens public confidence more than uncertainty.

The average Nigerian is not concerned with the technical distinctions between jurisdiction, venue or judicial discretion. The citizen asks a simple question: How can two courts interpreting the same law produce opposite commands on the same matter?

When this becomes frequent, confidence in the judicial process inevitably suffers.

The danger extends beyond legal theory.

Conflicting judicial orders encourage forum shopping. Rather than allowing the merits of a case to determine its outcome, litigants begin searching for jurisdictions believed to be more sympathetic to their cause. Lawyers expend enormous ingenuity identifying the most favourable forum instead of presenting the strongest legal argument. The courtroom gradually shifts from being a sanctuary of justice to becoming a battlefield of procedural manoeuvres.

This is neither healthy for the legal profession nor beneficial to constitutional democracy.

Political disputes have particularly exposed this institutional weakness. Party leadership crises, disputes arising from primary elections, legislative contests and questions of party discipline have increasingly produced multiple proceedings in different courts. Before one order is fully understood, another emerges from another jurisdiction pointing in the opposite direction.

The result is institutional confusion.

Electoral bodies become uncertain about which order deserves obedience. Political parties become divided over which judgment represents the law. Law enforcement agencies hesitate. The public watches in bewilderment while confidence in the justice system steadily erodes.

Yet the problem is not confined to politics.

Commercial litigation also suffers. Investors, both domestic and foreign, place enormous value on legal certainty. Business thrives where contracts are enforceable and judicial outcomes are predictable. Once contradictory judicial pronouncements become commonplace, uncertainty enters the investment environment. Investors become reluctant to commit capital where legal disputes appear capable of producing inconsistent outcomes depending on the courtroom in which they are heard.

The economic consequences are therefore far-reaching.

The rule of law is not sustained merely because courts exist. It is sustained because citizens believe that like cases will be treated alike, that judicial reasoning will be consistent, and that justice will not depend upon geography or tactical litigation.

No legal system can flourish if litigants begin choosing courts the way shoppers choose markets.

This growing phenomenon also places an unfair burden upon appellate courts. Matters that ought never to have generated conflicting interlocutory orders are hurried to the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court simply to restore institutional coherence. Precious judicial time is consumed resolving procedural contradictions instead of determining substantive questions of law.

The National Judicial Council and the leadership of the judiciary cannot afford to regard this as a routine administrative inconvenience. It is an institutional challenge requiring urgent attention.

Clearer case-allocation procedures, stricter enforcement against abuse of judicial process, more effective coordination among court registries and meaningful sanctions for deliberate forum shopping deserve serious consideration. Equally important is the continuing education of judicial officers on the broader institutional consequences of conflicting interlocutory orders.

Judicial independence is indispensable. But independence does not imply institutional isolation. Every judge exercises constitutional authority as part of one judiciary. Every judicial order either strengthens or weakens public confidence in the institution as a whole.

Ultimately, the greatest casualty of contradictory judicial orders is neither the litigant nor the lawyer.

It is public trust.

Once citizens begin to believe that justice depends less on the strength of one’s case than on the choice of courtroom, the moral authority of the judiciary begins to diminish. And once that moral authority is weakened, the courts lose the one asset no Constitution can confer and no statute can compel—public confidence.

The Temple of Justice must not become a hall of competing echoes.

It must speak with one constitutional voice.

The law may develop. Judicial opinions may differ. Appellate courts may refine legal principles. But the judiciary must never allow itself to project an image of institutional discord.

A temple where every choir sings a different hymn cannot inspire worship.

Neither can a judiciary that speaks with conflicting voices continue to command the confidence upon which justice ultimately depends.

The parrot has spoken.