Nigeria cannot build democracy on judicial contradictions and party chaos
Nigeria’s multiparty democracy is steadily losing its vitality, and the alarming decline is largely the result of political parties tearing themselves apart through endless infighting while the judiciary compounds the situation with contradictory rulings.
The latest round of turmoil in the Peoples Democratic Party illustrates how dangerous this combination has become. Instead of offering clarity, the courts have delivered confusion, making internal party disputes even more chaotic than they already were.
In recent weeks, the PDP has been trapped in a legal and political quagmire regarding its national convention. What ought to have been a routine internal exercise spiralled into a legal showdown after two Federal High Court judges in Abuja, Justices James Omotosho and Peter Lifu, issued separate orders restraining the party from holding its convention in Ibadan.
In sharp contrast, a judge of the Oyo State High Court, Ladiran Akintola, granted an ex parte order allowing the convention to proceed. That contradictory judicial direction immediately provided ammunition for rival factions to interpret the law to suit their interests.
On the strength of the Oyo court’s decision, one of the factions proceeded with the Ibadan convention on November 15 and 16, during which Kabiru Turaki emerged as national chairman and a number of influential members including the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, former Ekiti State governor, Ayodele Fayose, and the suspended National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu — were expelled.
Instead of providing a path to stability, the outcome of the convention aggravated the division within the party.
The aftermath descended into open hostility as both factions attempted to seize control of the national secretariat in Abuja. The situation quickly escalated, with political thugs and security operatives deployed by the rival camps engaging in intimidation and assault.
The police sealed the Wadata Plaza to prevent a breakdown of public order. In a tit-for-tat response, members of the Wike-led camp announced their own expulsion of several prominent figures from the opposing faction, including Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State, Governor Dauda Lawal of Zamfara State, former Board of Trustees Chairman, Adolphus Wabara, Bode George, and Kabiru Turaki.
The crisis is only the latest manifestation of a deep-seated conflict that began long before the 2023 general elections. At the centre of this longstanding feud lies the bitter fallout from the presidential primaries in which Atiku Abubakar defeated Wike.
Instead of healing, the party fractured further as Wike formed the G5 group of governors, which included Seyi Makinde and former Benue State governor, Samuel Ortom. Their opposition to Atiku’s candidacy weakened the party’s cohesion, and the PDP has been unable to recover ever since.
At a time when political parties should serve as breeding grounds for democratic leadership and ideological clarity, the PDP has become entangled in ceaseless disputes that undermine its relevance as an opposition party.
The crisis is compounded by the judiciary’s growing inability to provide consistent and credible interpretation of the law. Nigeria has once again slipped back into the dangerous culture of forum shopping, reminiscent of the 2021 crises in Rivers, Kebbi and Cross River states, when litigants hunted for conflicting orders from courts of equal jurisdiction.
The National Judicial Council sanctioned several judges at the time, warning against indiscriminate ex parte rulings, but the problem clearly persists despite those disciplinary measures.
There is widespread belief that some politicians obtain favourable judgments by exploiting weaknesses within the judicial system.
The notion of “cash-and-carry justice” has become so common that Nigerians barely react when claims are made that court decisions can be bought. Retired Supreme Court Justice Amina Augie once lamented the corrosive impact of political interference on judicial appointments, and she condemned the actions of corrupt court registry staff who deliberately misplace or hide case files to manipulate proceedings.
These allegations strengthen the perception that the judiciary is increasingly vulnerable to external pressure.
The continued contradictions in judicial orders represent a growing threat to Nigeria’s democratic development. Conflicting judgments create confusion rather than clarity, undermine the authority of political parties, and erode public confidence in the justice system.
Political disputes that should be resolved internally become battlefields for court warfare, and voters lose trust in the entire political process.
The Independent National Electoral Commission has a responsibility to offer clear guidance regarding leadership disputes within political parties. Although the matter is internal, the Electoral Act and party constitutions provide the framework for resolving such issues, and INEC’s silence usually emboldens factions to perpetuate their disputes in court.
A regulatory body cannot remain detached when a major political party is sliding into chaos.
The judiciary, however, carries the greatest responsibility. The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, must take decisive action to restore public confidence.
The system requires strong disciplinary measures for judges who issue reckless or contradictory orders. It also needs structural reforms that will end the manipulation of case assignment, ensure digital transparency in handling ex parte motions, and restrict jurisdictional abuses that encourage forum shopping.
Judges need better training in electoral jurisprudence, and there must be a mandatory system that ensures transparency through the publication of all sensitive ex parte orders.
The political class must also demonstrate leadership. Parties cannot function effectively when they operate like personal empires controlled by powerful individuals rather than institutions governed by established rules.
The elders and founding members of the PDP have once again failed to provide moral authority or mediation. A party that hopes to regain national power should at least maintain internal discipline and organisational coherence.
Although political disagreements exist in advanced democracies such as the United Kingdom and the United States, such conflicts rarely collapse into violence or depend on judicial intervention for issues that party mechanisms can handle.
Nigerian politicians resort to the courts because many believe the outcomes can be influenced or purchased. Until political parties strengthen their internal systems and the judiciary resists manipulation, Nigeria will continue to struggle with democratic instability.
There is an urgent need for the NJC to intensify its oversight because a judiciary that functions without integrity represents a direct danger to national stability. Court judgments must enhance democracy, not destroy it. Nigeria cannot build a functional political system when political actors manipulate the judiciary and the courts become extensions of political factions.
The nation stands at a critical crossroads once again. If political parties continue to disintegrate and the judiciary remains inconsistent, Nigeria risks losing the foundational pillars that sustain constitutional democracy.
The responsibility to prevent such a collapse rests with political leaders, judicial authorities, and regulatory bodies that must act quickly and decisively to restore order and credibility.