Legal and procedural barriers that continue to weaken the enforcement of court judgments against police officers and other public officials, Lagos-based lawyers raised alarm that the situation undermines accountability and public confidence in the justice system.
In a chat with the newsmen, Abibat Bankole-Apena, a lawyer, said existing legal provisions make it extremely difficult to enforce monetary judgments awarded against the police and other government agencies, even when victims succeed in court.
According to her, Sections 84, 85 and 86 of the Sheriffs and Civil Procedure Law or Act require the consent of the relevant Attorneys General before any monetary judgment can be enforced against a statutory body or its officers.
She explained that where the judgment is against a federal agency, such as the Nigeria Police Force, the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation must be obtained, while judgments against state agencies require approval from the state Attorney General.
“In many cases, these consents are hardly ever granted. Victims may go through the rigours of litigation and secure favourable judgments, yet enforcement becomes almost impossible,” Bankole-Apena said.
She noted that the situation emboldens erring police officers and public officials, who act with the knowledge that financial consequences may never materialise even after adverse court rulings.
“This gives misbehaving officers courage to continue acting arbitrarily because they know the judgment may not be enforceable,” she added.
Bankole-Apena stressed that the problem extends beyond the police, as the same provisions apply to officers of both federal and state agencies.
She called for the repeal or amendment of the affected sections, arguing that effective enforcement of judgments is critical to improving discipline within public institutions.
“If public officers know that there are real consequences for misconduct, they will act better. But where enforcement can be blocked by refusal of consent, accountability is weakened,” she said.
Similarly, another lawyer, Dr Yemi Omodele, said penalties are designed to promote discipline and efficiency, but their impacts are often diluted by enforcement challenges.
Omodele explained that the award of costs by courts is primarily meant to discourage frivolous litigation, unnecessary delays, and non-compliance with court rules, rather than to punish parties or legal practitioners.
“Most times, costs are awarded to compensate a party for expenses incurred during litigation, especially where delays are caused by default or failure to comply with court processes,” he said.
According to him, courts usually impose default costs where a party fails to appear, neglects to file required processes, or seeks adjournments without justification.
Omodele noted that personal cost orders against lawyers are rare and guided by strict principles, as courts are cautious not to discourage legal representation or professional advocacy.
He added that costs awarded by courts are typically modest and discretionary, considering the conduct of the parties, time wasted, and the nature of the case.
“Costs are not meant to enrich the other party. They are intended to compensate for inconvenience and maintain discipline in the judicial process,” Omodele explained.
He advised litigants and lawyers to comply strictly with court directives and procedural rules, stressing that respect for court processes strengthens the justice system and ensures the timely resolution of disputes.
In this article