EDITORIAL: Courts Under Siege: Ending Political Abuse of Justice in Nigeria

Few institutions command as much moral authority in a democracy as the courts. They are meant to be the last refuge of the aggrieved, not a playground for political gamesmanship. Yet, in Nigeria, a troubling pattern has taken root: politicians increasingly weaponise the judicial process, filing frivolous suits and initiating parallel actions in courts of coordinate jurisdiction in pursuit of tactical advantage rather than justice.

This practice, often described as forum shopping or multiplicity of actions, is neither new nor subtle. It manifests most visibly during election cycles and party disputes, when litigants rush to different courts seeking favourable rulings or conflicting interim orders. The result is confusion, delay and, at times, a damaging erosion of public confidence in the judiciary. When courts of equal standing issue contradictory orders on the same matter, the integrity of the system is called into question.

The law is not silent on this. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently condemned such conduct as an abuse of court process. It has made clear that filing multiple suits on the same subject matter, between the same parties and seeking identical reliefs, is a misuse of judicial machinery. In principle, the consequences are straightforward: such cases ought to be dismissed, struck out, or penalised with substantial costs.

In practice, however, enforcement has been uneven. Sanctions are too often mild, and the deterrent effect negligible. For politically exposed litigants, the benefits of delay or confusion frequently outweigh the risks of reprimand. The courts, already burdened by heavy caseloads, are further strained by avoidable litigation that clogs dockets and slows the administration of justice for genuine disputes.

Responsibility does not rest with politicians alone. Members of the Bar who facilitate these tactics must also be held to account. The ethical duty of counsel is not merely to win cases, but to uphold the integrity of the legal system. The Nigerian Bar Association has repeatedly warned against sharp practices, yet disciplinary action remains rare and often opaque.

If the judiciary is to retain public trust, firmer steps are required. Courts should impose punitive costs that reflect the gravity of the abuse, rather than token penalties. Clearer procedural safeguards can help prevent the filing of duplicative suits across jurisdictions. More importantly, disciplinary bodies must act decisively against legal practitioners who repeatedly engage in such conduct.

Democracy depends not only on free elections, but also on credible institutions. When the courts are reduced to instruments of delay or manipulation, the rule of law itself is diminished. Nigeria cannot afford such erosion. The time has come to draw a firm line: the judicial process must serve justice, not political expediency