Prof. Ernest Ojukwu has publicly disagreed with Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana over the controversy surrounding conflicting Federal High Court judgments on the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) 2027 election timetable, defending both judges and rejecting calls for an investigation by the National Judicial Council (NJC), while arguing that the divergent rulings reflect a normal and healthy judicial interpretive process.
In a series of posts on X, Ojukwu responded directly to Falana’s criticism, rejecting the argument that Justice Emeka Nwite Omotosho should have waited for the Court of Appeal’s decision on an earlier related judgment by Justice Peter Lifu Umar before delivering his own ruling on similar issues. He maintained that there is no legal requirement for a judge of coordinate jurisdiction to defer to another judge’s decision, and questioned whether any party had formally drawn the existence of the earlier case to Justice Omotosho’s attention in a manner requiring him to pause proceedings.
Ojukwu argued that judicial independence would be undermined if judges were expected to follow the decisions of colleagues at the same level, stressing that conflicting first-instance judgments are an expected feature of constitutional interpretation, especially where new legislation is being tested. He added that such disagreements are precisely why the appellate system exists, to reconcile divergent interpretations and establish binding authority.
He also strongly rejected calls for an NJC or Nigerian Bar Association investigation, describing them as unnecessary and potentially amounting to harassment of judges for performing their duties. According to him, conflicting rulings should not automatically be treated as misconduct but as part of the legal system’s evolution, particularly in relation to emerging statutory interpretation under the Electoral Act 2026 and related constitutional provisions.
Rather than criticising either judge, Ojukwu commended both Justice Umar and Justice Omotosho for exercising judicial independence, arguing that their contrasting interpretations could ultimately strengthen the development of constitutional law. He further proposed that all appeals arising from the conflicting decisions be consolidated before a single panel of the Court of Appeal to ensure consistency and prevent further contradictory appellate outcomes.
Falana had earlier raised concerns in a statement titled “Nigerian Judges and Lawyers Should Be Prevented From Sabotaging the 2027 Election,” warning that conflicting rulings on INEC’s timetable could create legal uncertainty ahead of the elections. He argued that Justice Omotosho should have deferred to the appellate court before issuing a contradictory judgment and called for an urgent NJC and NBA review of the circumstances surrounding both decisions, warning of potential risks to electoral stability.
Legal analyst Dr Misbau Alamu Lateef, in a widely circulated assessment, noted that both judgments agreed on key issues, including the mandatory nature of statutory timelines for candidate submission and substitution under Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act framework. However, he identified a fundamental disagreement over whether INEC has constitutional authority to determine timelines for party primaries. Justice Umar held that INEC lacked such power due to legislative silence, while Justice Omotosho relied on constitutional provisions and sections of the Electoral Act that recognise INEC’s authority over election timetables.
The analyst also highlighted additional divergences over provisions relating to candidate lists, membership registers, campaign timelines, and the scope of relief granted in each judgment, concluding that the core conflict cannot be resolved at the trial court level and must be settled by the Court of Appeal.
Court filings further revealed that the Social Democratic Party’s counsel, Realwon Okpanachi, had previously filed a motion before Justice Omotosho seeking to strike out the case on the grounds that Justice Umar’s earlier ruling had already addressed substantially similar issues. Despite this, Justice Omotosho proceeded to deliver judgment, a development that may become central in any appellate review.
INEC has already appealed Justice Umar’s decision and sought a stay of execution, with further appeals expected from other aggrieved parties. Ojukwu reiterated that consolidation of all related appeals before a single appellate panel would be the most efficient way to resolve the legal conflict and avoid inconsistent rulings at the Court of Appeal.
Until appellate clarification is reached, the conflicting judgments continue to generate uncertainty around INEC’s authority over election scheduling, leaving political actors and stakeholders operating under competing legal interpretations of the same constitutional and statutory framework.
In this article