There are moments when a nation hears the truth so clearly it can no longer pretend not to. Late August was one such moment. When former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan, alongside the Sultan of Sokoto, warned that justice in Nigeria is now negotiated rather than delivered, they were not speaking metaphorically. They were describing a justice system that has quietly drifted from adjudication to auction.
This, let us admit, is judicial rascality: a polite phrase for an impolite decay. It is the culture of lawlessness within the law: judges shopping for “friendly” jurisdictions, midnight ex parte orders that rewrite daylight realities, and endless adjournments deployed as tactical weapons. It is the spectacle of contradictory injunctions from courts of equal standing, the defiance of precedent, and the arrogance that treats bail as a privilege, not a right. It is the judge who becomes a political operative and the courtroom that doubles as a campaign office. When such conduct becomes routine, courts cease to be sanctuaries of order; they become marketplaces of influence.
Read also: Justice on trial: Judicial rascality and political interference
The economic cost of this dysfunction is staggering. Entrepreneurs now budget for “friction”, the price of speed, adjournments, and outcomes. Politicians redirect resources from winning voters to courting judicial gatekeepers. Investors, reading Nigeria’s courts as risk indicators, inflate costs or flee entirely. According to the World Bank’s Doing Business reports, contract enforcement in Nigeria takes an average of 447 days and costs nearly 40 percent of the claim value. This is not efficiency; it is extortion by process. Jonathan’s warning that capital runs from places where justice is for sale was not rhetoric. It was arithmetic.
But the damage runs deeper than lost capital. When citizens discover that knowing the judge matters more than knowing the law, the social contract tears. People retreat from formal justice into private “arrangements”; settlements that soothe the moment but corrode the republic. The poor pay in humiliation and delay; the rich pay in fees and access. One buys results. The other buys despair.
“A judiciary that accepts gifts from the political class acquires a patron and a patron always expects a return. This is not hospitality; it is institutional corruption wearing a polite smile.”
How did the temple sour? Political interference did not creep in; it marched in. Appointments are weaponised by loyalty tests. “Sensitive” cases are quietly shepherded to familiar hands. Oversight is slow, opaque, and rare enough to embolden impunity. Underfunding leaves virtue lonely. Procedural complexity rewards obstruction. And the absence of reliable data, no national metrics for case age, clearance rates, or compliance, turns reform into theatre. In this vacuum, professional incentives mutate: lawyers profit from prolongation, judges bask in patronage, and the public loses faith in justice altogether.
Nowhere is the rot more visible than in election petitions. On paper, the timelines are strict; in practice, they stretch elastically for those who can afford delay. Strategic injunctions become the real campaign, and judgements begin to resemble negotiated settlements. In commercial disputes, enforcement can be stalled indefinitely. In public-interest cases, compliance with court orders often follows the government’s political convenience. The message to citizens is devastatingly consistent: the law is optional.
There is also the darker seam: executive capture. Rumours, often credible, circulate of inducements disguised as “courtesies” or land allocations to senior judges whose neutrality is suddenly in question. Even as allegations, these stories do irreversible harm. A judiciary that accepts gifts from the political class acquires a patron and a patron always expects a return. This is not hospitality; it is institutional corruption wearing a polite smile.
Yet diagnosis is not destiny. If this rare moment of elite candour, from two former presidents, a revered monarch, and a professional meeting in Enugu, is to mean anything, it must lead from applause to architecture.
First, radical transparency. Publish daily cause lists with reasons for adjournments. Set time standards by case type and display them publicly. Restrict ex parte orders to emergencies, impose short return dates, and mandate peer review. Introduce early case-management conferences, cap adjournments, and sanction counsel who weaponise delay. Digitise the essentials, e-filing, e-service, and virtual hearings, and make all judgements searchable. This is not innovation; it is administrative courage.
Second, discipline with teeth and with light. Fast-track complaints against both Bench and Bar, and publish the outcomes. Make procedural abuse career-limiting. Create dedicated commercial and small-claims tracks with strict 90–180-day resolution targets. Rebuild ethics as a daily discipline: continuing legal education tied not to attendance but to actual case-management results and client feedback. Make delay expensive and integrity rewarding.
Read also: Advertising Offences Tribunal holds equal judicial powers on advertising offences – Experts
Third, depoliticise the pipeline. Judicial appointments and promotions must be governed by transparent scorecards, diverse panels, and public scrutiny. Guarantee multi-year funding insulated from executive interference, matched by independent audits and performance dashboards. Improve welfare, security, and professional development for judges because accountability without dignity breeds cynicism, and poverty is a poor guardian of virtue.
Ultimately, this is both a moral and economic choice. A country that allows judicial rascality and political interference to define justice will find everything else too costly: credit, jobs, peace. A country that restores justice as a public good will earn something rarer than investment: trust.
The robe does not confer integrity; it demands it. If Nigeria still remembers this, it might yet find that justice need not be bought, only believed.
