By Mamman Mike Osuman

Conflict denotes a persistent situation of serious disagreement in opposing ideas or wishes, which makes preference of one to the other difficult. The plain and ordinary meaning of the word contradictory is “mutually opposed or inconsistent”. Giving a node of affirmation to this, the Supreme Court in the case of NNADIKE & ANOR V. NWACHUKWU had this to say: “the word ‘contradictory’ simply means, mutually opposed or inconsistent. It also means a proposition so related to a second that it is impossible for both to be true or for both to be force”. The question that yawns for an answer is, whether or not the issue of conflicting Orders/decisions in Electoral / political matters exist within our Nigerian legal system? The simple answer to this is “yes, it does”. Notwithstanding Thomas Hobbes and David Humes we must quickly call to mind the fact that our courts are manned by “human” judges and not robots. They are from different ethnic groups, different backgrounds, different beliefs, different analytical abilities, different perceptions, different insights etc., therefore, it is not totally strange to hear issues of conflicts in judgment. Having noted the above, there is no gainsaying that the Nigerian Judiciary is currently being threatened by incessant contradictory and conflicting court Orders/decisions which not only causes problems amongst legal officers, but also raises serious concern and suspicions for those outside the bench, thereby questioning the authenticity and justiciability of the legal justice in Nigerian Courts. Opinions are divided between those who think reason plays a substantial role in the determination of judgment in the court, and others who claim reasons as insignificant. The general belief among legal officers is that courts’ decisions are not arbitrary pronouncements. There is the rule of law and the ratio. It must be pointed out that courts of coordinate jurisdiction like the High Courts and Federal High Court are not subjected to follow each other’s decision as they are mandated to follow the decisions of the Penultimate Court and the Apex Court. So, conflicting decisions from the formal Courts are really destabilising until a proper party appeals against such decisions. For example, in September 2020, conflicting judgments of the courts was demonstrated in the case of Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki’s participation in the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) governorship primary election. Here, the case received two conflicting orders. While a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt barred him from taking part, an Edo State High Court, sitting in Ekpoma, cleared him for the exercise. The Order of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, no doubt, conflicted with that of Edo State High Court and hence generated divergent views in the polity, according to legal analysts and commentators. Conflicting judgments of the court are, with respect, very embarrassing and can indeed destroy the foundation of the rule of law, democracy and any decent society. It erodes the confidence of people in the judiciary especially when judgments end up in a very confusing manner. Another example is the case of Ikpeazu and Ogah, 2016 Abia State. The Judge of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, had in his judgment, ordered Ikpeazu to vacate his office, even as he directed INEC to immediately issue a fresh certificate of return to Ogah, who came second in the governorship primary election of the PDP. Although INEC had since issued certificate of return to Ogah, another Court in Abia State had restrained the Chief Judge from swearing him in. The issue of courts of coordinate jurisdiction churning out conflicting decisions on similar matters has always occurred in the judiciary, it raises serious concern and creates suspicion among legal practitioners and the general public. Conflicting court orders are final or interim orders or decisions of courts of coordinate jurisdiction, or of different divisions in the same court hierarchy both of which contradict each other in respect of the same subject matter. Conflicting court orders may not necessarily conflict with any particular previous order of court. They may be calculated to contradict clear provisions of the Constitution, statutes or regulations. They could also be targeted at contradicting existing precedent in a case previously decided by an appellate court on the subject matter, even where there is no compelling reason whatsoever to contradict such precedent. Where this happens, the age long legal principle of judicial precedent (expressed in Latin as stare decisiset non quietamovare) is jeopardised and needlessly undermined. Conflicting orders or decisions are known to be made by High Courts, both federal and states; and sometimes even made by separate Divisions of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court is hardly known to engage in them, although in a number of cases, the Supreme Court has given judgments which tend to conflict with its previous decisions. Conflicting orders and decisions made by the Federal and State High Courts in political/electoral matters involve party management, pre-election and post-election disputes. Such orders threaten the very foundation of our democracy and the justice system as a whole. They are meant to gain undue advantage for “beneficiaries” in defiance of the Constitution, statute or regulations. They are orchestrated by lawyers who engage in forum shopping, by going from one High Court to another in search of pliant judges who can grant their clients favourable orders. Such cases are often hurriedly filed and accompanied with ex parte applications seeking interim reliefs of significant consequences. Conflicting court orders are not of recent origin in our political landscape. They date back to the transition to civil rule programme during the military rule era, although they were few and far between. This is apparently because political parties had good control of their internal management unlike now where there seem to be so much judicialisation of the political system. An example of such orders during the 1993 presidential election are the controversial orders made on the eve of the election by Justice Bassey Ikpeme (now deceased) of the High Court, FCT restraining the conduct of the June 12 presidential election, followed by subsequent orders of other High Courts nullifying the order. The events that ensued are now history, but as practitioners in the temple of justice, we need to constantly remind ourselves that our justice system played an unpleasant role in the prelude to those events with devastating consequences for our democratic stability and the erosion of confidence in our justice system. The late Chief Justice of Nigeria – Honourable Justice Dahiru Mustapher had once lamented about conflicting Court Orders and decisions of Courts. He said: “I must mention that quite a number of judgments from the Court of Appeal and a few from the Supreme Court appear to have created some confusion amongst practitioners and the general public.” The creation of several divisions of the Court of Appeal has compounded the problem of conflicting orders and decisions at the Appellate Courts. This unfortunate malaise has not only negated the principle of judicial precedent but occasioned considerable pain and untold hardship on litigants in their quest for justice. It has also generated adverse public perception of the judicature’s capacity to guarantee unequivocal justice. The late CJN summed up his harangue by saying that the country’s current judicial process is like a Russian Roulette where any outcome is possible. Confidence of lawyers, and indeed of litigants in the Court of Appeal orders and decisions on electoral and political matters has substantially diminished. Perturbed by this recurrent anomaly, I sought audience with both sitting retiree justices of both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on the cause/s of the notorious and destabilising contradicting orders and decisions of both the apex and Courts of Appeal. The problem of conflicting court orders and decisions in our justice system, and the need for all well-meaning and influential voices to find ways and means of halting the drift cannot be over-stressed. As one of you, I believe that I owe a duty to the profession and to the justice system as a whole to lend my voice to the issue and to offer my honest views on the way towards stemming the unfortunate trend. Except those who indulge in such infractions or think they “benefit” from it, every genuine stakeholder in the justice system and the democratic institutions of our country have expressed deep concern about the damaging effect of conflicting court orders. In addition to the embarrassment they cause the judiciary and the odium they inflict on the legal profession, such orders have very serious negative effects on the ability of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to effectively perform its constitutional and statutory roles, as the commission is inundated with such orders especially during every election circles. As a result of such orders, uncertainties remain in the electoral process even after elections are concluded. My Address is organised in four parts. After this opening remark, I shall give an insight into what constitutes conflicting court orders and identify when the trend became rampant in our electoral/political litigations. Next, I will discuss the relatively recent episodes of conflicting court orders, which have raised serious questions about the integrity of our justice system. I will then highlight disciplinary reactions of the leadership of the Bar and Bench to such orders, and the recent efforts made by the judiciary to forestall them. Finally, I will set out other measures, which I believe can curb conflicting court orders, before making some concluding remarks.

SOME REASONS FOR THE CONTRADICTING ORDERS AND DECISIONS PARTICULARLY OF THE COURTS OF APPEAL The dotted divisions of the Court of Appeal within the country, are each, composed of either three, four, five, six seven or eight justices. Faced with individual pressures by reason of workload, Court of Appeal Justices hasten into hearing and delivering judgments. Periods such as in pre-election and post election times constitute times of great pressures on the Justices. During these periods, the Justices get overwhelmed. They are overburdened. Justices in one Division don’t reach out to their brother Justices in other divisions with a view to finding out the nature, characteristics and decisions they had taken and delivered on particular Appeals. Invariably, orders and decisions made at various divisions on the same subject matters and on the same provisions of the law, contradict. Most justices of the Court of Appeal stagnate their families in their chosen stations of interest and so recourse to them whenever opportunities arise. Unfortunately some justices recourse to their families rather than remain in their duty post to participate at their in house conferences where they are expected to rob minds and take informed positions on the facts, laws and fate of appeals they had jointly heard. Their laxity is sometimes reflected in their individual shallow judgments or individual contributions that are briefly expressed in the two letter words “I agree”. Whereas errors and bad decisions taken at the Court of Appeal are likely corrected and justice provided at the apex Court, the latter is sometimes confronted with its own conflicting decisions. When this happens, irate members of the public sometime pu blish comments on such discomfiture. Lawyers communicate the anomaly to the CJN. Conflicting judgments sometimes occur when two or three five-man panels sit over a spate of time. On such occasions the CJN would empanel a seven-man panel to review, reconcile and take a judicial position that invariably becomes the veritable definitive decision on the finding and the law relating to the issues in controversy. Osuman, Senior Advocate of Nigeria delivered this as a Keynote Address during the 2022 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Minna Branch Law Week. Reading his address on the occasion of the conferment in the Supreme Court of the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria on 17 lawyers in April 2010, the former NBA President, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu SAN complained on the sad and ugly conflicting orders and decisions of the Appellate Courts. It has been loudly insinuated that like the popular adage that says “no smoke without fire” circumstantial evidence exists in support of the allegations that some of these contradicting orders and decisions of Courts were occasioned by compromise either at the behest of politicians or through the filthy hands of lawyers. Numerous cases of contradicting Court Orders and Decisions of Courts in Electoral and Political matters bearing the same facts on similar subjects are unleashed by the Appeal Courts during the same period. The recent cases of AGBAJE vs. FASHOLA and FAYEMI and ONI readily come to mind as outrageous examples of where contradicting decisions of the Court of Appeal on electoral and political matters made headlines to the chagrin of some litigants. The colour of biro other than the one prescribed in the Electoral Manual was disregarded and dismissed as inconsequential in AGBAJE vs. FASHOLA (supra) by a division of the Court of Appeal. Curiously, in FAYEMI vs. ONI another division of the Court of Appeal, during the same period, on February 18th 2010, nullified elections of 63 out of 177 wards in Ekiti State on the grounds that accreditation was done with red biro instead of a blue biro as stipulated in the Manual. I recall a similar personal experience in the case of JAMES INIAMA & 10 vs. BARRISTER GODSWILL O AKPABIO & 34 OTHERS wherein on behalf of the 1st Appellant (my client) I submitted that the non inclusion of his photograph and name on the Voter’s Card (whereas it was otherwise with that of his opponent Godswill Akpabio – the sitting State Governor) was irregular and prejudicial to my client. The Court of Appeal sitting at Calabar and coramed by Galadima JSC Rtd and 4 other justices held that even though non-inclusion was proved, no evidence was led to show the negative effects of the non-inclusion of the Appellants photo on the ballot paper since the Appellant participated in the election and was voted for. The Court concluded that the Appellants complaint about an absence of his photo and name on the Voter’s Card was “of no moment”. The Court’s decision concerning the non-inclusion of the name and photo of a Petitioner was considered by other divisions of the Court where it was decided that it was consequential and also of the moment. This is another example where two different Courts of Appeal have taken diametrically opposite legal positions on the same issue and subject matter. In AMOSUN vs. DANIEL, the Appeal Court presided over by Justice ML Garba held that one Tunde Yadeka was not a forensic expert in the examination and analysis of election material. Strangely enough the same Court with the same coram in AREGBESOLA vs OYINLOLA ruled that the same Tunde Yadeka was an expert. The two cases with similar facts but on which two different judgments were delivered were decided within a period of less than two months. Whereas the Court of Appeal struck out a frontloaded statement on the ground that the specific wordings as contained in the 1st schedule to the Oaths Act was not correctly stated, another Court of Appeal in OBUMNEKE vs. SYLVA discountenanced the same er ror on the grounds that it was a mere technicality in IBRAHIM vs. INEC. The Court of Appeal case of ONWUKA NKEIRUKA vs. DIMOBI JOSEPH is yet another of a Court of Appeal case wherein its decision regarding the Oath Act constituted a conflict. JUDGES from courts of coordinate jurisdiction trafficking in conflicting judgements may soon receive the hammer, as the National Judicial Council that is vested with powers to rein in errant judicial officers is investigating such serial rascality. But it is unfortunate that it is acting rather too late. So much damage has already been done to the judicial system. The Chief Justice of Nigeria, (Mahmud Mohammed), who had during his tenure chaired the NJC, had once said: “All the judges involved are being investigated and actions will be taken against them, accordingly.” The trend has spawned an avalanche of petitions against such judges, some of which were sent directly to the President, contrary to laid down procedures. A protracted intra-party feud in the PDP had resulted in Ali Modu Sheriff and Ahmed Makarfi leading rival factions, which at different times obtained conflicting judgements from Federal High Courts in Abuja and Port Harcourt respectively. The 2016 governorship election dispute in Abia State between Okezie Ikpeazu and Uche Ogah – all of the PDP – and Appeal Court panels in Abuja and Ilorin decisions on the Public Order Act, also elicited such judicial pantomime. These rulings are making Nigerians nervous. It is incredible that the court at the appellate level is even not insulated from this abuse of the court process. Why this is so is evident in the CJN diagnosis: “Such decisions were made as a result of flagrant refusal of the panels of the Court of Appeal involved to be bound, not only by its own decisions, but by the decision of this Court (Supreme Court)”. Abuses like these reflect the high level of decadence in our judiciary, and are a clear indictment of judicial authorities. Indeed, their regulatory capacity or ability to control the system is being questioned. Appellate courts exist for litigants who feel that they are denied justice at the lower courts to seek redress. But when they run to courts with coordinate jurisdiction, apparently goaded by their tainted counsel, it leaves the judiciary severely corrupted. But is there any hope that this recklessness could easily be curbed? We doubt very much. Previous CJNs had in the past warned judges to stop reckless granting of interlocutory injunctions, perpetual injunctions, and improper use of discretionary powers, largely fuelled by corruption, but to no avail. In cases where the NJC reacted, its action hardly resonates. Regrettably, some judges in Nigeria see themselves as a special breed of citizens who are above the law. This is also true of some senior lawyers, who handle these briefs that bring odium to the justice system. Ayo Salami, a former President of the Court of Appeal, once alleged that retired senior judges were deeply involved in “bribing or intimidating judges,” under the guise of legal consultancy. Nothing could be more despicable. Guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary is essential. But when corrupt judges get a slap on the wrist by the NJC, as they are often treated, it lays the corrosive foundation for the moral atrophy that currently whacks our justice delivery system. The CJN should make no mistake about it: improprieties in the judiciary will continue to fester until judges that traffic in them are tried and jailed, in accordance with the laws of our land. It is the way societies that are guided by the rule of law redeem or protect the sanctity of their judiciary. In Britain for instance, the most senior black female judge, Constance Briscoe, was sentenced to 16 months in prison after she was found guilty of lying to the police that investigated Chris Huhne speeding points’ scandal in 2014. While jailing her, the judge, Baker, said Constance “considered respect for the law was for others.” This is the erroneous mentality errant judges and lawyers in Nigeria have that underpins the impunity, which destroys the system. When the law is a respecter of a caste of persons, public confidence in the judiciary vanishes; and invariably promotes self-help to the peril of the entire society.

RECENT EPISODES OF CONFLICTING COURT Orders Unfortunately, the situation has not abated. Thus, in the last few months alone, several conflicting court orders have been made by different High Courts across the country. The situation has literally reached “epidemic” proportion, despite severe criticism by stakeholders in the justice sector including the national leadership of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the National Judicial Council (NJC), and the ceaseless condemnation by members of the general public. For instance, just before the conduct of the gubernatorial elections in Anambra State last year 2021, several conflicting court orders surfaced over the rightful candidates of the contending political parties and the authentic executive committees of the political parties featuring in the election. Only a few weeks ago, the Federal High Court in Ibadan, Oyo State struck out a suit seeking to nullify the controversial Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act for want of locus standi. Later, another Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State gave judgment nullifying the subsection, without considering the locus standi of the applicant. This is an embarrassing situation, which must be avoided, otherwise the entire justice delivery system will be ruined. Sadly, the same scenario has continued in the run up to the forthcoming gubernatorial elections in Ekiti and Osun States with conflicting orders being issued here and there over the authentic candidates of the contesting political parties.

STRATEGIES TO CURB CONFLICTING COURT ORDERS For many years, no serious disciplinary actions were taken against conniving lawyers and plaint judges cited for orchestrating conflicting court orders. The leadership of both the Bar and Bench only stopped at warning perpetrators of this gross misconduct. Perhaps, this is why the trend continued unabated for many years. Happily, this lenient response has now changed. A few months ago, seven lawyers (including a Senior Advocate of Nigeria) were indicted by an investigating committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) for being complicit in the professional misconduct for engaging in the issuance of conflicting court orders. They have since been brought to face the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for trial, with the specter of serious disciplinary consequences hanging on them like the sword of Damacles. Earlier in September 2021, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Rt. Hon. Justice Ibrahim Muhammad directed the National Judicial Council (NJC), to commence disciplinary hearings against three judges indicted for issuing conflicting court orders. In the end, all three were found culpable and barred from getting promotion for periods ranging from two to five years. These disciplinary actions are part of the strategies deployed to curb conflicting court orders. However, they appear to be more reactive than preventive. I am glad that the NJC appears to recognise the limitation of relying only on disciplinary measures. Thus, on May 11, 2022, the NJC issued a new Policy Directions to heads of superior courts nation-wide setting out strict rules regarding where political and election-related disputes may be filed .The new policy provides direction on how heads of courts and judges are to handle political and election-related matters before courts of coordinate jurisdiction. This is to prevent waves of conflicting decisions from such courts of coordinate jurisdiction, by limiting where matters seeking similar remedies may be filed. The policy applies to cases in which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), any political party or its officers or natural persons are parties. It applies when such parties are “suing or being sued for declaration in relation to any action taken or to compel or restrain any action or omission with respect to the affairs of a political party or any election into a public office”. Such suits whose outcome will likely have “effect or compel persons or actions beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any one state” must be filed at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja. Where such suits are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the Policy Direction provides that “they shall be filed or received at Abuja and assigned by the Chief Judge of the Court”. However, where “such suits wherein the cause of action arose in a state and the relief seeks a declaration or to compel or restrain person(s), natural or legal, within that State’s territory, with no consequence outside the State, same shall be filed, received or heard only in that state”. In addition to the above disciplinary measures both at the

Bar and on the Bench, as well as the administrative step taken by the NJC with the issuance of the Policy Direction of 11 May, 2022, I propose that the legal profession comprising the Bar and the Bench must take deliberate measures to reinvent itself. This must be by the concerted efforts of all stakeholders. In my view it requires a deep-rooted approach that must be all embracing. The current Chief Justice of Nigeria, like his predecessors has been heard in official fora threaten judges rendering conflicting Court Orders with being investigated by the National Judicial Council (NJC). The learned Chief Justice purports to suggest that NJC will be the ultimate panacea to the outrageous conflicting orders and decisions of Courts in Electoral and Political matters. I humbly disagree. Whereas the NJC simulates as the veritas, a – sort of fons justitiae, nonetheless it still remains a quis custodiet ipsas custodies. Section 153 of the Constitution states the membership of the NJC. As aptly stated by Thomas Hobbes and David Humes, two philosophers, the first English and the second Scottish, the NJC, in so far as they are peopled by humans, some of their decisions would most times be devoid of reason, morality and indeed, characterized by prejudice, passion, divergent personal interests and sentiments. To that extent, we must stop believing that the NJC will be a panacea to the unfolding threat of the outrageous conflicting orders and decisions of Courts in Electoral and political matters. The whip has never been known to mend a child. Efforts must be made at vacating the causes, which includes not only a gradual education but the building of awareness techniques for Judges. Judges should also be accorded their rightful pay and a impressive after retirement facilities such as is currently provided by some states governments. Specifically, I propose the following additional measures: A. The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, especially Order 30 which provides that “A lawyer is an officer of the court and accordingly, he shall not do any act or conduct himself in any manner that may obstruct, delay or adversely affect the administration of justice” should be strengthened with specific provisions censoring any lawyer who orchestrates or assists in orchestrating conflicting court orders. B. On the part of the Bench, the judiciary must make a point of duty to train and re-train judges on the limits of their power especially in political/electoral matters. They should be made to appreciate and imbibe the political question doctrine in the adjudication process with a view to adopting a more prudential approach in issuing court orders in such matters. Where issuance of order in such matters is likely to inflict jeopardy, the court must exercise extreme caution and actually avoid assuming jurisdiction. This is particularly advised in matters of internal party management and electoral matters which INEC has powers to regulate. This is to avoid usurping the regulatory powers of INEC and opening a floodgate of litigation in matters that are best resolved politically and administratively. C. Recruitment unto the Bench should be reviewed to deliberately attract lawyers with strong background, qualifications and proven capability in research and analysis. Elevation from the inferior bench to the High Court and the Court of Appeal must also take cognizance of the research and analytical qualities of the prospective candidates. This is important because contrary to the popular impression, not every incident of conflicting court order is caused by inducement or orchestration. Many may actually be the result of the judge’s very poor appreciation of the law on the subject matter.

D. The leadership of the NBA and the NJC should constitute a high powered Bar and Bench Forum (BBF) specially dedicated to addressing the menace of conflicting court orders and the strategies to forestall them. This BBF must be a standing platform with powers to monitor and report on cases of conflicting court orders. The Bar and Bench should contribute to funding the BBF in order to ensure its sustenance. The justice system must remain the beacon of light for every society and must actually be capable of shaping it to be law-abiding. Otherwise, where the system is corrupted or flawed, there will be catastrophic collapse of such society sooner than later. If society collapses, life itself would return to the state of nature which Thomas Hobbes once described as “short, nasty and brutish”. One sure route to the collapse of society is the erosion of confidence in the justice system as a result of uncertainties inflicted by conflicting orders and decisions of courts. As members of the legal profession, we all owe a primary duty more than everyone else to take conscious steps against conflicting court orders. We can begin by re-dedicating ourselves to our sacred professional duty as exemplified in Order 1 of the RPC, which provides that “A Lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner.” We must make a strong commitment to ourselves to consciously imbibe this cardinal duty of a lawyer to be professional and to be just, without being coerced to do so by disciplinary measures. Otherwise, without such commitment, no amount of sanctions will suffice to persuade a lawyer against undermining his professional responsibilities. It is important to note that Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act (2022) is a statutory mechanism for facilitating a quick dispensation of justice as it compels political parties to submit not later than 180 days before the date appointed for general election the list of candidates validated at the primaries which the party intends to sponsor for the generation to be conducted by INEC. In effect it constitute a statute of limitation, which keeps the political parties vigilant and on their toes as non-compliance with this statutory legislation is irreversibly prejudicial to both the candidate and his political party. This potent legislation discourages political parties from vacillating. Its effect is that it introduces decorum into the political system. Conflicting Orders and decisions of Courts is an aberration and an abuse of processes. When litigants with the aid of their Counsel embark on the condemnable voyage of filing legal processes with a view to obtaining orders and decisions that stand in conflict to pre-existing adjudication, orders and decisions over the same subject matter that is tantamount to multiplication of action which has been frowned upon by Courts including Supreme Court as evident in the case of Nigeria Intercontinental Merchant Bank Ltd vs. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd, put it graphically by Pats Acholonu JSC of blessed memory: “The theory of justice to which we adhere rests a priori on the premise that there must be certainty and the parties to the legal duel should be in a position to know where they stand at a certain time. A system of law where Judges of the same degree i.e. of co-ordinate jurisdiction make contradictory and inconsistent orders in respect of the same subject matter involving the same parties i.e. each relying on his own whims, caprices, prejudices and sometimes a vaunting ego, makes nonsense and mockery of the law.” In his contributory opinion, Ejiwunmi, JSC said: “Where a Court was clearly aware that another Court of coordinate jurisdiction is seized of a case with the same parties and the same subject matter before it as found in this appeal, it is an abuse of process for that Court to continue with the hearing of the case and proceed to make orders as was done in this case.” See also Dumez Nigeria Plc v. U.B.A. Plc where this Court, per Rhodes-Vivour, JCA (as he then was) cautioned: “Once a Judge is aware of a case in his, or another jurisdiction on the same subject matter as the one before him such situation calls for caution. Nowadays this is common and Judges should not allow it to occur. If they do and proceed with the trial as if all is well, there is a real likelihood of two conflicting decisions at the end of trial – which would end up polluting the streams of justice which ought to be kept pure at all times.” Writing on the troubled issue of conflicting orders and decisions in electoral and political matters, a Nigerian born public policy analysts said: “The gale of conflicting judgments granted for ex-parte applications by courts of the same coordinate jurisdictions that are currently trending is a validation of the reality that our courts may no longer be the hallowed chambers of justice that they used to be. Rather, they are now trading floors for the highest bidder for justice.”

SOME OTHER CAUSES FOR CONFLICTING ORDERS AND DECISIONS IN ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL MATTERS Many reasons abound for the indiscriminate issuance of conflicting orders and decisions. One of the indisputable causes is judicial corruption. Others are partisanship and incompetence amongst judicial officers. Some corrupt judges easily lend themselves to politicians and interested merchants for the exchange of money and material benefits. There are also judges who are discretely interested in cases brought before them such that they loose objectivity, integrity and judicial honour. Some others are incompetent either because they were products of a quota appointment policy or are surrogates of wealthy politicians who for all times and purposes operate as their benefactors. Whatever were or are the attractions, I unreservedly maintain the strong view that judicial corruption is indefensible and intolerable.

RECOMMENDATION The mode of appointment to the NJC should be reviewed. Appointment by the National Executive Committee of the NBA is a calculated deception as it is in fact the President of the Bar who appoints persons of his own choice – usually on grounds other than ideal. Sufficient lawyers with added skill on IT should be employed in the Court of Appeal. They will be of tremendous assistance to their designated justice. Divisions should constantly synergize with each other. Court Conferences should be made compulsory while the slovenly approach by recalcitrant justices should be checked by the Presiding Justices. An open door policy should be adopted that allows decent, organized, disciplined, matured, industrious, diligent senior lawyers (not including those whose major consideration were on grounds of affinity and egotism) to be appointed as judges in Appellate Courts. 1. Enhanced technology in judges’ chambers, increased pay, improved welfare, and appointment of more judges. 2. Creation of 6 Zonal Constitutional Courts with specific jurisdiction particularly for the purpose of reducing the workloads of the Supreme Court . 3. The CJN together with the National Judicial Institute should organize conferences or workshops (and I must add) fund them to enlighten and caution the Bench and the Bar about the risk inherent in the imminent regime of turbulent politics where the judiciary would be exposed to the manipulative tendencies of desperate politicians. 4. Amidst the current insecurity poverty and illness which the three arms of government have acknowledged, the gladiators in the political landscape have already stretched out their claws and exposed their poisoned teeth to the chagrin of Judges, lawyers and citizenry. Judges should isolate themselves from undue contact and stop romanticizing themselves with politicians and disreputable lawyers. Election matters in Nigeria are replete with conflicting judgments. In the build up to the Edo State Governorship Election of 2020, the Governor Godwin Obaseki decamping to and participating in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Governorship primary election elicited conflicting decisions of trial Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The public were suddenly confronted with two Orders that diametrically contradicted each other. The same scenario of contradicting decisions played out in Anambra State Gubernatorial election of 2021, Court Orders infested the air like missiles and criss-crossing themselves for prominence. They derived from the various primary elections over the authentic candidate of the political parties. INEC stood at the beck and call of the various Courts whose arsenals embodied conflicting Court Orders. INEC had on July 16, 2021 published the name of Umeoji as the APGA candidate in the election on the Orders of the Jigawa High Court. On July 18th Justice Charles Okaa of Anambra State High Court gave another Order directing INEC to publish the name of Professor Charles Soludo as APGA’s candidate. Meanwhile, Justice Iheka of the Imo State High Court had ordered INEC to publish Umeoji’s name as APGA’s candidate. As the rigmarole continued unchecked, Justice Obiora Nwabunike of Anambra State High Court had, in the interim, declared Ugochukwu Uba as the PDP Candidate just when Justice Nganjuwa of the Federal High Court, Awka, Anambra State ordered INEC to publish the name of Valentine Ezeigbo as the candidate of PDP in the same election. The above abysmal interplay of conflicting Orders set INEC on a dance floor that was devoid of music rhyme. INEC naturally became petrified as it feared being held for contempt. The quagmire increased in intensity as lawyers busied themselves exchanging multiple Writs and other Processes on behalf of their gladiator clients.

CONCLUSION The philosophical garp propounded by the two globally renowned respected profound philosophers (Thomas Hobbes and David Humes) absolutely fit Nigerians. Consequent upon that classification, it will be wishful to expect either an ideal Nigerian judge or an ideal Nigerian Lawyer whose way of life can be described as puritanical. Hobbes and Humes apt characterization of man which by coincidence fits like a cap on a Nigerians head is irrefutably synonymous to his Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). The only way out is to seek legislative amendment to our Laws with a superimposed administrative watchdog that will superintend judges and lawyers in the course of their judicial duties and legal practice respectively. Concomitant to my above proposal must be an enforceable penal system. I thank you, I thank the Niger Bar Association for according me the privilege and honour as Guest Speaker on this life topic that intimately relate to legal practice and the Administration of justice particularly during this auspicious period when all the political gladiators are already at daggers DRAWN. I also sincerely thank the National Working Committee that organized this impressive Law Week Programme. I thank the Chairman and Members of the Niger State NBA executive for their vision and foresight. The topic of this paper is as worrisome as it is current and important. My invitation and the WhatsApp message that spelt out the topic I would speak upon was communicated to me for the first time on the afternoon of Friday 3rd June 2022 – barely three days ago. That obviously is my defence for the lack of depth and particulars, which a paper on a topic like this should contain. The occasion of your Law Week and my Presentation of this paper as Guest Speaker will forever remain in my memory as today marks my 75th Birthday on mother earth. I therefore invite you to join me in thanking God for his favours upon my life.