In this report, Vanguard’s Law & Human Rights examines the latest crisis brewing in Rivers State, fueled by conflicting orders from two High Court judges over the conduct of local council elections.

As the contradictory orders throw the state into legal and political disarray, senior lawyers are calling on the National Judicial Council, NJC, to intervene, insisting that the Council act decisively to maintain judicial integrity and prevent a repeat of such incidents in the future.

By Ise-Oluwa Ige

Rivers State is in the midst of a deepening crisis following conflicting court rulings by two judges of coordinate jurisdiction—one from the Federal High Court in Abuja and the other from the Rivers State High Court.

These rulings center on whether the local government elections, scheduled for October 5, 2024, should proceed. The two contradictory judgments have not only thrown the state’s electoral process into chaos but have also brought back uncomfortable memories of similar judicial missteps in other parts of Nigeria, highlighting the dangers of unchecked judicial authority in politically charged cases.

As the controversy intensifies, senior legal experts are urging the NJC, the body responsible for overseeing judicial conduct, to step in without delay, even if formal petitions have not been lodged. According to the legal luminaries, immediate NJC action is necessary to safeguard the credibility of Nigeria’s judiciary. The senior advocates who spoke include Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN; Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN; Prof. Chidi Odinkalu; and Chief Samuel Okutepa, SAN, among others.

Recurring judicial dilemma

This current legal crisis in Rivers State is the latest in a troubling pattern of conflicting judgments being issued by judges of coordinate jurisdiction. It follows a similar episode in May 2024, when three judges—Justice Mohammed Liman, Justice S. Amobeda, and Justice Amina Aliyu—issued conflicting orders regarding the Kano emirship dispute. The controversy surrounding that case heated up the political atmosphere in Kano and drew national attention to the judiciary’s role in escalating political tensions. Despite the clear breach of judicial decorum, none of the judges recused themselves from their respective cases, nor did they face any disciplinary actions from the NJC.

At the time, the then-Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola convened a meeting with the heads of the Federal High Court and the Kano State High Court to discuss the circumstances surrounding the conflicting rulings. However, the damage had already been done. No sanctions were imposed, and the state of Kano remains in turmoil, with two substantive Emirs reigning over separate jurisdictions—a lasting consequence of judicial overreach.

Following the retirement of Justice Ariwoola, hopes were high that the new Chief Justice, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun would usher in a more disciplined era for Nigeria’s judiciary. However, just weeks into her tenure, a fresh wave of judicial contradictions has hit the legal system, this time in Rivers State. Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja and Justice Chigozie Igwe of the Rivers State High Court issued conflicting judgments regarding the upcoming local council elections, reigniting fears that Nigeria’s judicial system is losing its grip on impartiality and authority.

Beginning of Rivers crisis

The current crisis in Rivers State can be traced back to a landmark Supreme Court ruling on July 11, 2024, which declared unconstitutional the practice of state governors withholding funds allocated for local government administration. In the lead judgment, Justice Emmanuel Agim emphasized that the 774 local government councils in Nigeria must manage their own funds, warning that any deviation from this would constitute “gross misconduct.” The ruling was widely celebrated as a victory for local governance and transparency.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Federal Government issued a 90-day ultimatum to state governors, requiring them to comply with the ruling or face the withholding of funds meant for their local governments. The ultimatum set off a flurry of activity in states where local councils were not democratically elected, as governors rushed to organize elections in compliance with the court’s decision.

In Rivers State, the preparation for local elections quickly became a flashpoint for legal and political conflict. The All Progressives Congress, APC, filed a lawsuit in the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to delay the elections until the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission, RSIEC, fulfilled certain legal requirements. This lawsuit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/987/2024, aimed to prevent the local council elections scheduled for October 5, 2024, from proceeding without proper legal safeguards.

At the same time, another political party, the Action Peoples Party, APP, filed a separate suit in the Rivers State High Court, demanding that the election proceed on schedule. The lawsuit, marked PHC/2696/CS/2024, sought to compel the Rivers State Government and RSIEC to hold the local elections on October 5, as originally planned. Justice Igwe of the Rivers State High Court ruled in favor of the APP, ordering the state government to proceed with the election and directing the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to release the voter register to RSIEC.

However, just days before the election, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja issued a conflicting ruling. His judgment barred the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies from providing security for the election and prohibited INEC from releasing the voter register to RSIEC until certain conditions were met. The conflicting orders have now thrown the state into disarray, with political factions aligning themselves with the rulings that best serve their interests.

Legal, political implications

The conflicting judgments have left Rivers State in a state of heightened political tension. Governor Similaya Fubara, in a press conference at Government House, Port Harcourt, insisted that the local council elections would proceed as scheduled, despite the police’s refusal to provide security. The governor accused the Nigeria Police Force of acting under the influence of an unnamed politician based in Abuja, whom he alleged was trying to sabotage the elections.

Fubara’s defiance of the Federal High Court’s ruling further escalated tensions, as the election proceeded amid reports of sporadic violence. In the aftermath of the election, legal experts and political commentators have continued to debate the implications of the conflicting court orders. Critics argue that the Federal High Court overstepped its jurisdiction, while others have blamed the Rivers State High Court for escalating the situation by insisting on a rigid timeline for the election.

Judgments that defile logic, justice flying around —Okutepa, SAN

Reacting, Mr Samuel Okutepa, SAN who did not mention any particular case wondered why impeccable elder statesmen of the bar were keeping mum in the face of waning integrity of the legal profession.

“In those days when members of the legal profession were the hope of the marginalised and oppressed, there were strong and impeccable elder statesmen of the legal profession. When any member within the legal profession exhibited conduct that had potential of lowering the integrity of the legal profession, these elders waded in and ensured that the integrity of the legal profession did not suffer jeopardy in the hands of bad legal practitioners and judges

“Do we still have elders of Spartan courage and mien in the profession? I am asking because the legal profession is in need of elders who can save the profession from coming to a calamitous end. Today, judgments that defiled logic and justice are flying here and there. There are strong perceptions of state capture of our justice systems. Politics has entered the legal profession. Where are our elders? This is not the best time for the legal profession.” 

Court orders now ‘lucrative’—Prof Odinkalu

Also reacting, a former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Prof Chidi Odinkalu, said that the joke now is that “court orders these days are so lucrative that many judges make them – in good old Nigeria-speak – double-double. Responsibility for this sorry state lies mostly with the Federal High Court.

“The ancient city of Kano now has two Emirs, one state and the other federal after a Federal High Court judge decided to take chieftaincy into the federal realm. Edo State has two Deputy Governors too.

“By dint of the judicial labours of Peter Lifu, a judge, the Federal High Court also attempted to impose two separate dates on Rivers State for the conduct of Local Government elections after Chigozi Igwe, a judge of the High Court of Rivers State, had issued a considered decision setting 5 October as the date for the election.

“Rivers State Governor, Sim Fubara, acknowledged Peter Lifu’s hardwork by handing him the moniker of “that justice that gave that fraudulent judgment.”

“This is not the first time the Federal High Court will gratuitously constitute itself into an appellate forum to review without benefit of the records of proceedings and with the practised ill-will of a political hit-job dressed up in judicial robes, decisions of State High Courts.

“Nor is it the first time that the Federal High Court will convert itself into a court of unlimited jurisdiction that it is not at the expense of a State High Court which, under the Constitution, is indeed the only court of unlimited jurisdiction. This Federal High Court has become the place where the law falls into disrepute and Lady Justice suffers repeat rape,” he added.

NJC should make scapegoats—Ahamba, SAN

Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN has also expressed  revulsion at the abhorred practice of judges granting conflicting orders to heat up the polity and scandalize the judiciary.

“Those who are supporting the Federal High Court in this affair should let us know under what section of the constitution a Federal High Court has jurisdiction on matters outside the purview of section 251 of the constitution,” adding that the Federal high court in the first place ought not to hear such matter.

He said the National Judicial Council should not wait for petition when this kind of thing happens, advising that they should make reference to the law, call the errant judge to order and punish him.

He added that until one or two judicial officers are retired, others would not sit up.

Court cannot stop Police functions-Prof Kalu, SAN

Also contributing, Prof Awa Kalu, SAN said that a Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain cases on local government and its affairs just as he wondered why a High Court judge would order police not to perform its constitutional duty.

“A Federal High Court, a State High Court and a National Industrial Court are equal under the Constitution. What we expect as law abiding citizens is that no court should place itself beyond another when you are on the same level.

“When you have local government election, why should it be controlled by Federal High Court? And again, the primary duty of the police is to maintain law and order. So, why should a court direct police not to do what they are supposed to do—maintenance of law and order.”

NBA reacts

The Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, which has also lamented the menace of conflicting judgments from the affected high court judges concerning the scheduled elections stated that even if a court has directed the Police not to work with the Electoral Commission on Rivers State, nothing says the Police should not provide security for peace and order of Rivers State, adding that the refusal to provide security was not only unconstitutional but also illegal, immoral, and a dangerous signal that invites lawlessness and undermines democracy.