By: Daure David
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Nigeria has sparked a storm of controversy, raising fundamental questions about the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The case, which revolves around a power struggle in Rivers State, has seen a five-justice panel issue a decision that has seemingly overturned a precedent set by a seven-justice panel just a few years earlier. Legal experts, constitutional scholars, and political observers are now asking: Can a smaller panel overrule a larger one in the same court? And, more critically, has the Nigerian judiciary become a political tool?
The Legal Controversy: A Breach of Precedent:
The legal dispute centers around a 2025 ruling that declared the defected lawmakers in Rivers State – who had switched from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) – could continue to hold office despite a 2015 Supreme Court ruling stating that lawmakers who defect must vacate their seats unless their party is in crisis.
This new decision, issued by a five-justice panel, effectively overturned the previous ruling, which had been handed down by a seven-justice panel. Under standard judicial practice, smaller panels of the Supreme Court are not empowered to overrule decisions made by larger panels. By doing so, the Court has undermined one of the most fundamental principles of legal consistency – judicial precedent.
Professor Chidi Odinkalu, a renowned legal scholar, has condemned the decision, describing it as a “grave breach” of constitutional law and judicial tradition. According to Odinkalu, “A five-justice panel simply cannot overrule a seven-justice panel within the same court hierarchy. This action undermines the rule of law and creates a dangerous precedent for the future.”
Political Implications: A Divided Rivers State:
The ruling is not just a legal matter, but also a political one. The case comes at a time of intense political turmoil in Rivers State, where Governor Siminalayi Fubara is embroiled in a bitter struggle with his predecessor, Nyesom Wike. In late 2023, a group of 27 lawmakers in the state House of Assembly defected from the PDP to the APC, triggering a legislative crisis. Despite the 2015 Supreme Court ruling, which stipulated that defecting lawmakers must lose their seats, the defectors continued to hold office.
As the legal battle progressed, the situation escalated. The five pro-Fubara lawmakers remaining in the House of Assembly, operating in a near-empty legislature, passed the 2024 state budget – an act that was later signed into law by Fubara. However, in a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court ruled that only the pro-Wike faction of lawmakers could pass the state budget. In addition, the Court ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold federal allocations to the state unless the budget was passed by the pro-Wike lawmakers, punishing the people of Rivers State for the political standoff.
Constitutional Concerns: Judicial Overreach and State Autonomy:
Beyond the legal precedents, the ruling has far-reaching constitutional implications. The decision to withhold federal allocations from Rivers State is seen as an unconstitutional move, as the Nigerian Constitution guarantees the financial autonomy of states. The Court’s interference in state budgetary affairs has prompted fears of federal overreach, where political disputes could be resolved by withholding funds, thus harming citizens rather than politicians.
“This ruling represents a clear violation of the Constitution,” said Professor Odinkalu. “The withholding of federal funds as a political lever is an abuse of power that threatens the autonomy of state governments across Nigeria.”
A Politicized Judiciary?:
Perhaps most alarming is the perception that the judiciary is being politicized. Concerns over the ties between the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, and former Governor Wike have fueled suspicions of bias. Critics argue that the speed at which the case progressed through the courts, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling within weeks, is indicative of external political influence rather than judicial impartiality.
“The Court’s decision has weakened public trust in the judiciary,” said political analyst, David Okafor. “When the judiciary is seen as playing a role in political warfare, it ceases to be an institution of justice and becomes a tool for political maneuvering.”
A Call for Judicial Reforms:
In light of these developments, legal experts are calling for urgent reforms to restore credibility and independence to Nigeria’s judiciary. Key recommendations include ensuring that larger panels of the Supreme Court hear politically sensitive cases to avoid undue influence by smaller panels. Additionally, reforms should be enacted to prevent the arbitrary withholding of state funds for political reasons.
“There is an urgent need for judicial accountability in Nigeria,” said Odinkalu. “The National Judicial Council must take proactive steps to ensure that political considerations do not undermine the rule of law. Without reform, we risk further erosion of public confidence in the judiciary.”
A Dangerous Precedent:
The 2025 ruling on Rivers State’s political crisis is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by a compromised judiciary. By overturning an established precedent, interfering in state finances, and fueling suspicions of political bias, the Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent that threatens to destabilize Nigeria’s legal and political systems.
As Professor Odinkalu aptly notes, this ruling evokes the painful historical memory of the 1887 exile of King Jaja of Opobo – a politically motivated decision disguised as a legal one. Over a century later, Nigeria faces a similar challenge: the judiciary’s credibility is at stake, and unless urgent reforms are enacted, the Supreme Court may lose its standing as the protector of justice and become, instead, an instrument of political warfare.
The question now is clear: Is the Supreme Court still the defender of justice, or has it become a political tool? Only time will tell.
