The Nigerian judiciary was once feared, respected, and loved because it was alive. In the golden era of Kayode Eso, Chukwudifu Oputa, Augustine Nnamani, and Anthony Aniagolu, the bench did not wait for justice to rot while technicalities grew fat. The Supreme Court was an oracle that spoke quickly, boldly, and clearly when the nation’s political temperature spiked. Today, that oracle has developed laryngitis. The current retreat into procedural timidity, especially in the plethora of cases involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), is not judicial restraint. It is judicial abdication. And the cost is the slow death of internal party democracy and the enthronement of executive impunity.
1. What Judicial Activism Meant in the Esho-Oputa Era – Justice Kayode Eso JSC famously said, “The court is not a slave of procedure.” In Ariori v. Elemo (1983), Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986), and Adesanya v. President (1981), the Supreme Court under that generation understood that time is of the essence in political cases. When a party primary, congress, or convention was under litigation and the election timetable was running, the Court abridged time, sat on weekends, and delivered judgment with dispatch. Oputa’s dictum was simple: “Justice is not a game of hide and seek.” The court would pierce the veil of technical objections, ask “what is the real issue here?”, and settle it before INEC closed its window. That was activism — not to favor a party, but to ensure the political process was not strangled by litigation.
2. The Present Silence: PDP, ADC, and Reserved Judgments – Contrast that with 2025-2026. The PDP has been in court from ward congresses to NEC meetings. Every state chapter has at least two factions, each with ex parte orders from different High Courts. Suits challenging the national chairmanship, state executives, and candidate nominations have climbed to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Yet the apex court, confronted with live political grenades, now “reserves judgment” for weeks and months while INEC’s timetable expires. Litigants arrive at the court with burning houses and the Court tells them to wait for the fire brigade to finish writing its report.
The ADC case is even more telling. After the 2023 elections, ADC became the new bride for a coalition of political bigwigs defecting from PDP, LP, and even APC. Suddenly, founding members who kept ADC alive since 2005 found themselves branded as “legacy members” and pushed aside. The “bigwigs” came with money, governors, and media, and began to rewrite the party constitution by conduct. The result: multiple suits in FCT High Court, Federal High Court Abuja, and state High Courts, all asking the same question — who owns the soul of ADC?
Here is a clear case for judicial activism. The dispute is not about law; it is about show of strength, ego, and the arrogance of new entrants who believe politics is a cash-and-carry business. A Kayode Eso court would have consolidated the suits, ordered accelerated hearing, and pronounced within 14 days on the supremacy of the party constitution and the rights of existing members. Instead, what do we have? Conflicting interim orders, forum shopping, and the Supreme Court reserving judgment while the party implodes. The delay itself becomes a judgment in favour of anarchy. By refusing to speak quickly, the Court allows “big men” to downplay their arrogance, exhaust the patience of legacy members, and destroy internal party cohesion. That is why we find ourselves in problem.
3. Why the Delay is Fatal to Democracy – Political cases are not land cases. INEC’s timetable is constitutional. Section 285(14) CFRN and Section 29(5) Electoral Act 2022 give narrow windows for pre-election matters. When the Supreme Court reserves judgment for 60 days on a party leadership suit, it is not being careful; it is being complicit. The party cannot hold a valid primary, INEC cannot monitor it, and candidates emerge who will be sacked after election. The judiciary then turns around to annul elections and order re-runs, wasting billions and mocking voters. This is judicially induced crisis. In the PDP, the cycle is now predictable: two chairmen emerge, two primaries hold, INEC accepts one list, the other goes to court, the Court gives “status quo” which each side interprets differently, and the Supreme Court reserves judgment until after election. The voter is left with a candidate whose legitimacy is decided post-election. That is not democracy; it is lottery.
4. The APC-Tinubu Factor: An Albatross on the Bench – We cannot discuss lack of judicial activism without naming the elephant in the courtroom: the desire of the APC under President Bola Tinubu for perpetuation. A judiciary that was activist would have already resolved the PDP and ADC crises and given opposition parties a stable platform to challenge the ruling party. Instead, the opposition is left in court-induced disarray. Each reserved judgment, each conflicting order, each technical knock-out strengthens the ruling party by default. The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that the bench has been captured by the fear of political consequences. When the Supreme Court took 97 days to decide Akeredolu v. Jegede in 2021, it set a template: delay until the political fact is irreversible. That is the opposite of _lMarbury v. Madison activism. It is Pontius Pilate jurisprudence — washing hands while democracy is crucified.
5. What Activism Would Look Like Today – If the spirit of Eso and Oputa were to return, the Supreme Court would:
1. Invoke Order 2 Rule 9 of its Rules to consolidate all PDP leadership and ADC ownership cases. One judgment settles the principle for all.
2. Sit daily, including vacations, as it did in Buhari v. INEC (2008). Pre-election matters are sui generis.
3. Punish forum shopping with personal costs against lawyers and litigants, as Oputa JSC did in _Saraki v. Kotoye_ (1992).
4. Give purposive interpretation to Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act: once a party constitution is registered with INEC, new entrants cannot alter leadership without the procedure in that constitution. Period. That would end the ADC “bigwig arrogance” instantly.
5. Deliver oral judgment and adjourn for reasons, a practice the UK Supreme Court uses for Brexit cases. The country needs to know _today_ who is national chairman, not after convention.
6. The Consequence of Continued Silence – Lack of judicial activism is not neutrality. It is a vote for the status quo, and the status quo is chaos. PDP cannot heal because the court won’t tell it who its doctor is. ADC cannot achieve internal cohesion because the court won’t stop the discrimination against legacy members by moneybags who arrived yesterday. And APC does not need to rig when the opposition is too busy in court to campaign.
Justice is like medicine: it expires. A judgment on party leadership delivered after the election is like a post-mortem report — accurate but useless to the patient.
In conclusion, bring Back the Brave Bench. Nigeria does not lack laws. It lacks judges who are afraid to use them timeously. The Eso/Oputa Supreme Court was not perfect, but it understood that when politicians are running against time, the court must run faster. To reserve judgment in PDP and ADC cases while primaries collapse is to reserve justice until it is injustice. The bigwigs in ADC must be told by the bench that party membership is not a share you buy to oppress founders. The APC must be told by judicial speed that perpetuation is not a national policy. Until the Supreme Court rediscovers activism, the judiciary will remain an albatross around democracy’s neck, and we will keep asking: where have all the brave judges gone?
Myson A. Nejo, Esq.
Legal Practitioner & Human Rights Advocate.
Former ADC Gubernatorial Candidate in Ondo 2024 @all
In this article