Judiciary Should Rise in Defence of Nigeria’s Constitutional Democracy  –  Ejiofor 

By Chukwudi Ebele 

Human Rights Lawyer and Social Critic Sir Ifeanyichukwu Ejiofor Esq has in his recent article titled ‘WHEN THE LAST TEMPLE OF JUSTICE TREMBLES: Judicial Independence and the Survival of Nigeria’s Constitutional Democracy’ made a solemn Call for the Judiciary to Rise in Defence of the Constitution.

According to Ejiofor, A nation does not endure merely because it possesses a Constitution. It endures because those entrusted with interpreting that Constitution possess the courage, independence, and moral conviction to defend it against the excesses of power.

“Every constitutional democracy rests upon a delicate but indispensable balance among the three arms of government. The Executive administers, the Legislature enacts laws, and the Judiciary interprets and applies those laws without fear or favour. None exists to serve another; each exists to restrain the excesses of the others.

“This separation of powers is not an abstract constitutional ideal. It is the very foundation upon which liberty, accountability, and the rule of law are built. Whenever one arm of government becomes subservient to another, whether through intimidation, compromise, political expediency, or institutional weakness, the constitutional equilibrium is disturbed, and democracy begins a slow but dangerous descent.

‘History teaches that democracies rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually through the erosion of institutions, the silence of principled leaders, and the loss of public confidence in those institutions created to protect the people. Among these, none occupies a more sacred place than the Judiciary.

“The courts remain the citizen’s last refuge against executive arbitrariness, legislative excesses, and the abuse of public power. They command neither the sword nor the purse; their authority rests almost entirely on public confidence. Once that confidence is eroded, the rule of law itself begins to unravel.

“It is against this constitutional background that recent judicial pronouncements on matters of national importance, particularly those affecting our democratic process, have generated widespread legal debate and public concern.

“Two recent decisions of the Federal High Court have especially provoked constitutional discourse. The first concerns proceedings reportedly conducted and concluded , notwithstanding a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal restraining further action by the trial court. The second concerns the reported judgment/Ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Kogi State, which set aside an earlier judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party.

“These developments naturally invite important constitutional questions. By what recognised legal principle may a court revisit its own final judgment? Were exceptional circumstances, such as fraud, nullity, or the concealment of material facts, established to justify such intervention?

“Our law has long settled that once a court delivers its final judgment, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reopen that decision except in narrowly defined circumstances. The doctrine exists for a compelling reason: litigation must, at some point, come to an end.

“The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this settled principle when it deprecated an application inviting it to review and set aside its own final judgment. The apex court condemned the application as a grave abuse of judicial process and imposed substantial costs on counsel, reinforcing the long-established principle that final judgments cannot be casually revisited.

“The broader concern, however, extends beyond any particular case. Increasingly, certain judicial decisions in politically sensitive matters have given rise to public debate regarding judicial independence. Whether such perceptions are justified or not, they deserve serious attention because perception itself is fundamental to the legitimacy of the judicial institution.

“Perhaps no development poses a greater threat to constitutional democracy than a Judiciary perceived as vulnerable to external influence.

“A corrupt politician may impoverish a nation.

A corrupt civil servant may frustrate governance.

A compromised electoral officer may distort an election.

But a compromised judicial officer possesses the extraordinary power to legitimise illegality beneath the majestic cloak of judicial authority.

“That damage extends far beyond the litigants before the court. It weakens constitutionalism itself.

“History offers sobering lessons. Across many nations, democratic decline did not begin with military intervention or constitutional suspension. It began when institutions gradually surrendered their independence and courts became reluctant to restrain unconstitutional exercises of governmental power.

“Indeed, a single compromised judicial pronouncement may inflict greater institutional injury than a thousand political speeches.

“This reality underscores the indispensable role of the National Judicial Council (NJC), under the leadership of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, GCON. As the constitutional guardian of judicial discipline, the Council must continue to discharge its responsibilities with firmness, transparency, fairness, and institutional courage whenever ?credible allegations of judicial misconduct arise.Judicial accountability must never be mistaken for judicial persecution. On the contrary, accountability strengthens judicial independence by preserving public confidence in the institution. 

“Fortunately, Nigeria’s judicial history is illuminated by jurists whose names continue to command enduring respect. The late Justices Chukwudifu Oputa, Niki Tobi, and George Adesola Oguntade exemplified the highest ideals of judicial office through their scholarship, integrity, independence, and unwavering commitment to justice. Their enduring legacy reminds every judicial officer that the true dignity of the Bench lies not in the authority it confers but in the integrity with which that authority is exercised.

“The survival of constitutional governance depends not merely upon periodic elections but upon fearless judges willing to uphold the Constitution against every form of executive excess, political intimidation, or institutional pressure.

“The Judiciary remains the Republic’s final fortress of liberty. If that fortress is weakened by compromise, the Constitution itself risks becoming little more than beautifully printed paper.

“This reflection is therefore not an attack on the Judiciary. Rather, it is an earnest plea for its preservation. The overwhelming majority of Nigerian judges continue to discharge their constitutional responsibilities with honour, diligence, and integrity. Their exemplary service must never be overshadowed by the conduct, or even the perception surrounding, a few controversial decisions.

“Nigeria stands today at a constitutional crossroads. The National Judicial Council must continue to safeguard the sanctity of judicial office with unwavering resolve. The legal profession must defend judicial independence while insisting upon judicial accountability. Above all, Nigerians must never cease demanding that justice should not only be done but must manifestly and unquestionably be seen to have been done.

“For when the last temple of justice begins to tremble, every other democratic institution inevitably shakes with it. But when the Judiciary stands firm, the Constitution itself stands secure.

“The future of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy may ultimately depend upon the courage of those privileged to wear the judicial robe,and upon their fidelity to the solemn oath they swore to uphold, said Ejiofor.