Reckless Judicial Adventure and the Politics of Desperation~By Elder Abraham Amah
The judgment delivered by the Ibadan State High Court on a matter already decided by a Federal High Court and presently under appeal is not only legally indefensible; it is institutionally reckless. It represents a dangerous judicial adventure that must be firmly condemned if Nigeria is to preserve order, hierarchy, and credibility within its justice system.
At the heart of this controversy is a fundamental and well settled principle of law. Once a competent court has delivered judgment and an appeal has been entered, the subject matter is effectively removed from the jurisdiction of courts of coordinate or subordinate standing. This is not a matter of discretion or convenience; it is a matter of doctrine. The pendency of an appeal imposes restraint on all courts, ensuring that the appellate process is not rendered meaningless by parallel or contradictory pronouncements.
Against this backdrop, the conduct of the Makinde and Taminu Turaki faction can only be reasonably interpreted as an act of political desperation rather than a pursuit of justice. One is compelled to ask how any party, acting in good sanity and with respect for the rule of law, can approach a State High Court on a matter already decided by a Federal High Court and currently subsisting before the Court of Appeal. Such conduct offends logic, procedure, and judicial decorum.
This is not merely about jurisdiction in the abstract. It is about judicial discipline and institutional respect. The Federal High Court is not a casual forum whose judgments can be side stepped through tactical litigation. Once its judgment has been delivered and an appeal duly lodged, all parties are bound to submit themselves to the appellate process. To do otherwise is to invite chaos, encourage forum shopping, and weaponize the judiciary for political ends
The Ibadan State High Court, by entertaining and pronouncing on this matter, has ventured far outside its proper scope. Jurisdiction is the lifeblood of adjudication. Without it, every proceeding is void, no matter how confidently conducted or how politically convenient its outcome may appear. Courts are under a solemn duty to first satisfy themselves of jurisdiction before taking a single step. Failure to do so is not a minor procedural lapse; it is a fundamental error that strikes at the root of the proceedings.
Even more troubling is the timing and context of this judgment. The issues in question are already before the appellate courts, where clarity, finality, and authoritative interpretation properly belong. By issuing a fresh judgment on the same subject matter, the State High Court has effectively attempted to pre empt the Court of Appeal, undermine judicial hierarchy, and sow confusion within the political and legal landscape.
This pattern reinforces the growing perception that certain political actors now view the courts as alternative battlegrounds, to be engaged sequentially until a favourable outcome is procured. Such behaviour does grave damage to public confidence in the judiciary. When courts appear to speak in competing voices on the same issue, citizens are left bewildered, institutions are destabilised, and the rule of law is reduced to a tactical instrument.
Let it be clearly stated that this is not a condemnation of judicial independence, but a defence of judicial order. Independence does not mean lawlessness, and courage does not mean recklessness. The strength of the judiciary lies in restraint, consistency, and respect for its own internal hierarchy.
Accordingly, this judgment should neither be celebrated nor paraded as legitimacy. It should be promptly set aside, not in the interest of any faction, but in defence of legal coherence and democratic stability. The only lawful and honourable path remains the same. Allow the appellate courts to conclude their work without interference, contradiction, or judicial adventurism.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot endure a situation where desperation drives litigants to shop for courts, and courts, in turn, abandon restraint. Where a matter is already on appeal, silence, patience, and respect for process are not optional virtues. They are mandatory obligations.
