The Nigerian judiciary is facing a crisis of public trust following a series of controversial rulings by Justice Peter Odo Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The courtroom, often considered the last hope of the common man, has become a subject of suspicion due to Lifu's judicial conduct and administrative choices. Lifu's background in law and political science has raised questions about his impartiality in politically sensitive cases. His elevation to the Federal High Court in 2018 and transfer to Abuja in January 2024 has been marred by controversy.
In June 2026, Justice Lifu ordered the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other parties, which was later vacated by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court found that Lifu ignored proof that the parties had won elective seats, acted without jurisdiction, and delivered judgment 25 days after a stay order was issued. The Court of Appeal described Lifu's conduct as "judicial impertinence" and "judicial rascality." This was not an isolated incident, as Lifu nullified the ADC presidential primary in November 2026, invalidating Atiku Abubakar's candidacy.
Lifu's rulings have drawn accusations of political choreography, with some arguing that his actions are aimed at achieving predetermined outcomes. Despite some of his decisions being upheld on appeal, the warnings from the profession's highest quarters are clear. Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has cautioned judges against "forum shopping, concealment of related proceedings and attempts to obtain conflicting orders." The Nigerian Bar Association has also condemned judicial interference in intra-party affairs.
Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a renowned legal luminary, has questioned how Lifu, reportedly recovering from a stroke, authored a complex 103-page judgment. Odinkalu suggested that the judgment may have been drafted by external interests for a compromised bench to rubber-stamp. He also accused the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, of enabling "judicial decadence" through strategic assignment of politically sensitive cases.
The assignment of political cases to Lifu, a judge with a political science degree, has raised concerns about his impartiality. While Lifu's background may be suited to electoral jurisprudence, the Court of Appeal's reversal of the ADC deregistration judgment has failed to alleviate concerns. The opposition has cried foul, arguing that Lifu's rulings are aimed at achieving predetermined outcomes.
The judiciary's credibility in arbitrating electoral disputes is at stake, and the National Judicial Council (NJC) must act decisively on pending petitions against Lifu. The NJC's action is necessary to reaffirm that case assignment cannot be a tool for predetermined outcomes. If the judiciary is perceived as an instrument of executive convenience, it will erode public faith in the institution.
Ultimately, the crisis of public trust in the Nigerian judiciary requires a decisive response from the NJC and other stakeholders. The judiciary's only currency is trust, and once spent, no verdict can buy it back. The last hope of the common man must not become the first resort of the powerful, or democracy itself will be the casualty.
Key points
- The Nigerian judiciary faces a crisis of public trust amid concerns over Justice Peter Odo Lifu's judicial conduct and impartiality.
- Lifu's rulings have drawn accusations of political choreography and judicial rascality.
- The National Judicial Council must act decisively on pending petitions against Lifu to reaffirm the judiciary's impartiality.
