NJC AND CONFLICTING COURT JUDGMENTS

The Nigerian judiciary is grappling with a pervasive issue of conflicting court judgments, a trend that significantly undermines public confidence, legal certainty, and the integrity of the justice system. This article examines the role of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in addressing this challenge, particularly in light of its constitutional mandate to uphold judicial discipline and independence. Despite the hierarchical structure of Nigerian courts and the doctrine of *stare decisis*, instances of contradictory pronouncements, especially from courts of coordinate jurisdiction and even disregard for superior court orders, persist. The NJC, as the apex body for judicial administration and discipline, faces the critical task of fostering consistency, ensuring adherence to judicial precedents, and implementing robust disciplinary measures to restore the judiciary's credibility as the ultimate arbiter of justice.

The credibility, independence, and integrity of the judiciary are indispensable to the stability of any democratic society, serving as the last hope of the common man and the ultimate arbiter in disputes. However, recent developments within Nigeria's judicial system have continued to raise serious concerns about the consistency of judicial pronouncements and the growing incidence of conflicting court judgments, a trend that threatens public confidence in the administration of justice. This issue is particularly troubling when courts of coordinate jurisdiction issue contradictory decisions on similar legal issues, sometimes within remarkably short periods, leading to political uncertainty and institutional confusion.

These inconsistencies are not merely academic disagreements; they erode the doctrine of *stare decisis*, diminish the consistency that should characterize judicial reasoning, and can lead to forum shopping and selective enforcement of judgments. The National Judicial Council (NJC), established under Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), is constitutionally mandated to protect the judiciary from external influences and to ensure judicial discipline. This article delves into the persistent problem of conflicting court judgments in Nigeria, exploring its causes, impact, and the critical role of the NJC in mitigating this challenge to uphold the rule of law.

The Nigerian legal system, rooted in the common law tradition, operates on the fundamental principle of *stare decisis*, which dictates that decisions of superior courts are binding on lower courts. The Supreme Court of Nigeria stands at the apex of this hierarchy, and its decisions are final and binding on every court, authority, or person in Nigeria. This hierarchical structure is crucial for ensuring certainty, predictability, and consistency in the application of law, thereby fostering public trust and enabling legal practitioners to provide sound advice to their clients.

The National Judicial Council (NJC) is a federal executive body established by Section 153(1)(i) and Paragraph 20 of Part I of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. Its powers, outlined in Paragraph 21 of the Third Schedule, include recommending judicial appointments, exercising disciplinary control over judicial officers, and advising the President and Governors on judicial matters. The NJC's disciplinary mandate is vital for maintaining ethical standards and professional conduct within the judiciary, though its powers are generally limited to non-criminal matters and recommendations for removal require action by the President or Governor.

Despite the clear constitutional framework and the doctrine of *stare decisis*, conflicting judgments remain a significant challenge, particularly in politically sensitive areas like election petitions. These conflicts often arise from courts of coordinate jurisdiction, such as different divisions of the Court of Appeal or State High Courts, delivering contradictory rulings on similar or identical legal issues. A particularly alarming trend is the disregard by lower courts for subsisting orders or decisions of superior courts, as exemplified by a recent Federal High Court judgment that ordered the deregistration of political parties despite a Court of Appeal order to stay action on the matter. Such actions undermine the judicial hierarchy and create confusion.

The causes of these conflicting judgments are multifaceted. They range from judicial indiscipline, misinterpretation of laws, and the pursuit of technicalities over substantial justice, to allegations of corruption and partisanship. Some scholars also point to linguistic imprecision and ambiguous legal expressions in judgments as contributing factors to inconsistent interpretations. While some degree of judicial divergence is acknowledged as a natural part of legal evolution, persistent and irreconcilable conflicts pose serious institutional concerns, weakening confidence in the judiciary as a neutral and reliable arbiter.

The NJC has a crucial role in addressing this quagmire. Its powers of oversight allow it to monitor court rulings and ensure adherence to judicial principles. The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the NJC have issued warnings and interventions regarding conflicting pronouncements. Recommendations for tackling this issue include encouraging judicial harmonisation through precedent guidelines, enhanced supervision of court decisions, promoting judicial education and training, and leveraging disciplinary measures for inconsistent judgments. The NJC recently queried 256 judicial officers for performance-related issues and suspended two judges, demonstrating its commitment to judicial discipline. However, the ultimate resolution of conflicting decisions often lies with the appellate process, with the Supreme Court serving as the final arbiter. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged and lamented inconsistent interpretations of its decisions by lower courts, describing such practice as a threat to the integrity of judicial authority.

It is important to distinguish between truly conflicting decisions and judgments rendered *per incuriam*. A decision is *per incuriam* when it is made in ignorance or forgetfulness of a binding statute or authority that would have affected the outcome. Such decisions are not binding and lack precedential value. Mischaracterizing *per incuriam* decisions as 'conflicting' can inadvertently legitimize judgments that ought to be disregarded, further exacerbating confusion within the legal system. Therefore, a clear understanding and application of these principles are essential for maintaining judicial integrity.

The prevalence of conflicting court judgments in Nigeria presents a grave threat to the rule of law, democratic governance, and public trust in the judiciary. While judicial discretion and the dynamic nature of law may lead to some divergence in interpretations, the current scale of contradictory pronouncements, particularly those that disregard higher court orders, is unsustainable. The National Judicial Council, as the custodian of judicial ethics and discipline, must intensify its efforts to ensure strict adherence to the doctrine of *stare decisis* and the judicial hierarchy.

Practitioners must remain vigilant in identifying and challenging conflicting judgments, bringing relevant precedents to the attention of the courts, and advocating for consistency. There is a pressing need for enhanced judicial education, robust case management systems, and a proactive approach by the NJC to review and clarify judicial principles. Without decisive action to curb this trend, the judiciary's role as the impartial arbiter of justice will continue to be undermined, with far-reaching consequences for Nigeria's democratic stability. All stakeholders, including the Bar, Bench, and the public, must collaborate to restore confidence in the predictability and fairness of the judicial process.