By Akinwumi Laleye
This is a reflection on judicial inconsistency, legal certainty, and public confidence in the administration of justice. The increasing prevalence of conflicting judgments in Nigeria has once again drawn national attention to a fundamental question within legal philosophy and judicial practice: Can the law ever attain the certainty and precision associated with mathematics?
Recent years have witnessed a growing number of situations where courts of coordinate jurisdiction issue contradictory decisions on similar legal issues, sometimes within remarkably short periods. The consequences have ranged from political uncertainty and institutional confusion to growing public concern about the credibility of the judicial system.
While these concerns are legitimate and deserve serious attention, it is equally important to appreciate a reality often overlooked in public discourse: law is not a mathematical precision.
Unlike mathematics, where formulas generally produce fixed and predictable outcomes, the law operates within the complex realities of human conduct, social values, public policy, and judicial interpretation. Legal disputes rarely present themselves in perfectly identical forms. Facts differ, contexts vary, evidence may conflict, and legal arguments continue to evolve.
Even where statutory provisions appear clear, their interpretation may still generate differing judicial opinions. Consequently, two learned judges, acting honestly and within accepted legal reasoning, may arrive at different conclusions on seemingly similar matters.
Within reasonable limits, such divergence is not necessarily evidence of judicial failure. The common law tradition itself recognises that differing judicial interpretations form part of the natural evolution of legal principles. Indeed, the development of many settled legal doctrines emerged from earlier disagreements among courts and judges. However, while some degree of judicial divergence may be inevitable, persistent and irreconcilable conflicting judgments pose serious institutional concerns.
The situation becomes particularly troubling where courts of coordinate jurisdiction issue directly contradictory orders on substantially similar matters, litigants deliberately engage in forum shopping, or ex parte proceedings are deployed in ways capable of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
At that point, conflicting judgments cease to be merely academic disagreements and begin to threaten the stability and credibility of the justice system itself.
The authority of the judiciary ultimately rests not on force, but on public trust. Once citizens begin to perceive judicial outcomes as unpredictable, inconsistent, or susceptible to manipulation, confidence in the rule of law may gradually diminish.
One important reality must also be acknowledged: judges are not machines. Judicial decision-making necessarily involves interpretation, reasoning, discretion, and evaluation of facts presented before the court. This human element explains why perfect uniformity in legal outcomes can never be entirely guaranteed.
Different judges may attach varying degrees of importance to precedent, constitutional interpretation, public policy considerations, or evidential assessment. That is one reason appellate courts exist—to reconcile divergent opinions and provide greater legal clarity where necessary.
The existence of appeals is itself an acknowledgment that legal reasoning does not always operate with mathematical certainty.
Nevertheless, recognising that law is not mathematical precision does not mean accepting avoidable judicial inconsistency. Rather, it underscores the need for stronger institutional safeguards capable of reducing unnecessary contradictions within the justice system.
Such safeguards may include stricter adherence to judicial precedent, improved case management systems, integrated digital judicial infrastructure, discouragement of forum shopping, more restrained use of ex parte orders, and continuous judicial education.
Technology, particularly integrated digital case management systems, may also play a significant role in helping courts identify related or pending matters across jurisdictions before conflicting decisions emerge.
The responsibility for preserving the integrity of the justice system does not rest on the Bench alone. Members of the Bar also have an important duty to discourage procedural abuse, avoid multiplicity of actions, and uphold ethical standards in litigation practice.
The pursuit of legal victory must never outweigh the collective responsibility to protect the credibility of the judicial process.
Ultimately, the law was never designed to function with the rigid exactness of mathematics. Its strength lies not in mechanical precision, but in its ability to respond to the complexities of human society through reason, interpretation, and justice.
The objective, therefore, should not be to demand absolute mathematical certainty from the law, but to ensure sufficient consistency, fairness, and predictability to sustain public confidence in the administration of justice.
For in the final analysis, the stability of every legal system depends not only on the quality of its laws, but also on the confidence of the people who submit themselves to its authority.
Laleye, Esq. is former Secretary, Nigerian Bar Association,
Ekpoma Branch.
In this article