Post by Stephen Onuh Uwodi (@Enefuojo)
WHEN COURTS DEPART FROM SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES, THE RULE OF LAW IS PLACED AT RISK
It is jurisprudentially difficult to reconcile a situation in which a court entertains—let alone grants—an application brought by an association that lacks legal personality, seeking the deregistration of a duly registered political party. Such an outcome inevitably raises profound questions about the application of fundamental legal doctrines, including locus standi, juristic personality, and procedural fairness.
The rule of law demands that every litigant who approaches the court possesses the legal capacity to sue and that every judicial proceeding is conducted in accordance with established legal principles. These requirements are not mere procedural technicalities; they are essential safeguards designed to protect the integrity, consistency, and legitimacy of the judicial process. When these foundational principles appear to be overlooked or inconsistently applied, public confidence in the administration of justice is understandably affected.
This is no longer simply a debate about the actions of the executive branch or the political fortunes of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. It speaks to a broader institutional concern regarding the Nigerian judiciary itself. Courts derive their authority not from the power they wield, but from the confidence citizens place in their impartiality, consistency, and fidelity to the law. Judicial legitimacy depends upon the equal application of legal principles, irrespective of the identities or political affiliations of the parties before the court.
A judiciary perceived to be departing from settled legal doctrine risks creating uncertainty in the law. Such uncertainty weakens constitutional governance, encourages selective compliance with judicial decisions, and undermines the public's belief that justice is administered without fear, favour, affection, or ill will.
Many Nigerians are increasingly expressing concern that opposition political parties appear to be weakened through prolonged litigation and procedural disputes rather than through the ordinary democratic process. Whether those concerns ultimately prove justified or not, they deserve careful consideration because democracy is healthiest when political competition is decided primarily by the electorate through free, fair, and credible elections—not by avoidable procedural controversies.
The appropriate response to these concerns is not violence or the abandonment of constitutional order. Rather, it is a renewed commitment to judicial independence, transparency, accountability, electoral integrity, and constitutionalism. Citizens, civil society organizations, the legal profession, and democratic institutions all have a responsibility to insist that the Constitution and the law are applied fairly and consistently to every person and institution.
Nigeria's democracy cannot endure unless its institutions command public trust. That trust can only be sustained when courts remain faithful to established legal principles and demonstrate, through their decisions, that justice is impartial, predictable, and firmly anchored in the Constitution. The preservation of democracy depends not on the triumph of any political party, but on the unwavering supremacy of the rule of law.
0 likes · 0 comments · 0 shares