By Sylvester Udemezue
RE: “We Can’t Sit Aloof” — Rep Clement Jimbo Urges Parliament To Caution Judiciary Against Ambiguous Judgements”. According to TheNigeriaLawyer report of 23 July 2025, during plenary on that same date, Hon. Clement Jimbo, a member of the House of Representatives under the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC), moved a motion on personal explanation expressing deep concern over the increasing trend of ambiguous court judgments. He lamented that such rulings (often open to multiple interpretations) have begun to sow confusion and intensify political tensions. Consequently, he called on National Assembly to caution the judiciary, advocating for court decisions to be written in plain, unambiguous language that allows for only one clear interpretation. In response, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu acknowledged the concern and directed that it be entered into the official record.
I was not surprised by Hon. Jimbo’s observation. His concern echoes the sentiments of many Nigerians who have become increasingly worried about the trajectory of our judiciary, especially in terms of timely, impartial and effective justice delivery. Several recent examples illustrate this disturbing trend:
1. The PDP Secretariat Dispute: The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had submitted a dispute regarding its secretariat to the courts. Rather than offering a definitive and authoritative resolution, the court turned the matter back to the PDP itself, effectively evading its judicial responsibility and further deepening the party’s crisis.
2. The Labour Party (LP) Leadership Crisis: This is among the cases that highlight the judicial ambiguity and indecision that Rep. Clement Jimbo condemned. The leadership tussle between Julius Abure and Lamidi Papa and later (currently) between the Julius Abure faction and the Senator Nenadi Usman faction, have been marked by conflicting court rulings and a lack of firm judicial resolution, resulting in parallel claims, confusion, and diminished public trust. Rather than issuing clear and authoritative judgments, the courts often delivered vague or procedural rulings, appearing timid or hesitant, possibly out of fear of political consequences. This failure to assert judicial authority has fueled political instability and weakened democratic institutions. Rep. Jimbo’s call for the judiciary to return to clarity, consistency, and courage in its decisions is especially urgent in cases involving internal party crises with national implications. The LP saga exemplifies how judicial inaction or ambiguity can threaten the rule of law and democratic order. The judiciary must act with urgency and firmness to re-establish itself as the true last hope of the common man.
3. Senator Natasha’s Suspension Case: When Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan approached the court to challenge her six-month suspension from the Senate, the court, instead of acting as the authoritative interpreter of the law, appeared to adopt the role of a legal adviser, practically pleading with the Senate to reinstate her. This raises the question: what happened to the age-old legal maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy)? Has the judiciary become subservient to political actors, or is this a symptom of fear or sheer cluelessness? Where is the assertiveness and independence for which the courts are known and respected?
4. Rivers State State-of-Emergency Dispute: On 18 March 2025, a state of emergency was declared in Rivers State. Subsequently, on 9 April 2025, eleven PDP governors approached the Supreme Court to challenge the declaration (see: “11 PDP Governors Urge S’Court to Halt Rivers Emergency Rule”; Punch, 9 April 2025). As at today, 23 July 2025, the Supreme Court had yet to fix a hearing date let alone hear the case, at least to determine it one way or another. Meanwhile, related suits filed at the Federal High Court were on 21 July 2025 adjourned to 13 October 2025 (see: Daily Trust of 21 July 2025), by which date the six-month emergency rule (set to expire on 18 September 2025) would have ended. And at that point, the legal challenge would have become purely academic. What, then, is the purpose of initiating such cases in March and April 2025 if the courts would delay hearings until after the substance of the matter has become moot?
5. Where Is the Sense of Seriousness In Justice Delivery In Nigeria? Why should cases of urgent national importance linger on court dockets for more than 30 to 40 days? In my humble opinion, any judge or justice who allows such cases to remain unresolved beyond that timeframe ought to be suspended or have their remuneration withheld for contributing to the inefficiency of our justice system. For comparison, over 50 lawsuits filed in the United States against Donald Trump’s policies following the start of his second presidential term on 20 January 2025 were all determined within days, or, at most, a few weeks. Even appeals did not last more than one month. Yet, here in Nigeria, our courts are holding onto similarly important cases for months without action. What a tragedy!
6. The Point Must Be Emphasised: I am not suggesting how the courts should rule on these cases. That is entirely their constitutional prerogative. My point is that such high-profile, time-sensitive matters (especially those touching on national stability and constitutionalism) deserve to be heard and determined expeditiously. Delays erode public confidence, mock the very notion of justice, devalue the legal system and destroy the foundations of constructional democracy and the rule of law.
7. Who Then Is the Common Man’s Last Hope? If our courts can no longer act as decisive arbiters (interpreting and applying the law authoritatively and fearlessly and expeditiously too) what hope remains for the common Nigerian? Are the masses now entirely at the mercy of political elites, many of whom have little regard for the welfare of the people? To whom shall the ordinary citizen turn if the judiciary is caged, clueless, helpless, or compromised?
7. On Judicial Welfare vs Performance: Members of the Bench and stakeholders in the legal profession recently demanded a 200% increase in the salaries and allowances of all judicial officers. In response, the government and elected representatives of the people generously granted them a 300% increment. However, what have Nigerians received in return? Slower justice delivery. Deepening public despair. Growing judicial dependence. Rampant political interference. Disappointing outcomes. Judgment susceptible to varying interpretations! Utter confusion!
9. A Reflection from My Earlier Work: I recall the introductory paragraph of the “Abstract” to one of my published papers:
“After centuries of informal methods of dispute resolution in Nigeria, the judiciary as the third arm of government became the formal institution for settling disputes with the advent of colonial rule. This led to high public expectations that the courts would always dispense justice with utmost effectiveness and swiftness; the court is thus seen as the temple of justice, the last hope of the common man. Ironically, the system of justice delivery in Nigeria is abysmally slow [and ineffective], leading to widespread public disenchantment and loss of confidence, which in turn leaves many citizens looking elsewhere for ‘justice’. The result is that lawlessness and self-help are fast overwhelming respect for rule of law and due process—a predictable consequence, as naturally, loss of confidence in the justice sector is a recipe for anarchy.” [See: Sylvester C. Udemezue, “Snail-Paced Justice Dispensation In Nigerian Courts: Factors and Actors”, in U.D. Ikoni, T.F. Yerima, and P.H. Faga (eds), Judicial Autonomy, Administration of Justice and Contemporary Trends in Development of Legal Profession in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of His Lordship – Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4314970 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4314970]
10. I weep for the Nigerian judiciary. I weep for our beloved country. I weep for all of us: one-kain people navigating one-kain realities.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM).
Tel: 08021365545.
Email: mails@therealityministry.ngo, udems@therealityministry.ngo.
Web: www.therealityministry.ngo.
(23 July 2025).
