By Rafiyat Sadiq
In any democracy, the courtroom should stand as a sanctuary of truth, where both the weak and the powerful are held equally accountable under the rule of law.
However, in Nigeria, the judiciary has faced accusations of delivering rulings that are unclear, contradictory, and susceptible to manipulation, undermining public confidence in the legal system.
Analysts warn that these ambiguities are not only fueling political crises but also weakening public confidence in the very institution meant to safeguard justice.
In an exclusive interview with Pinnacle Daily, Hon. Nonso Okeke, Vice Chairmanship Candidate of the Zenith Labour Party (AMAC), former Anambra governorship aspirant, and political analyst, cautioned that ambiguous judgments and selective interpretations are dragging Nigeria toward judicial chaos capable of destabilizing politics, weakening democracy, and eroding trust in the courts.
He argued that the judiciary has surrendered its independence to the executive, betraying the doctrine of separation of powers .
“In Nigeria’s democracy, the executive has an overbearing influence on the judiciary, if the courts cannot deliver clear and impartial judgments, citizens will lose faith and resort to self-help and that could push the country toward anarchy,” Okeke warned.
Kenneth Eze, Lead Director of Speak Out Africa Initiative, in an interview with Pinnacle Daily aligned his thought with Mr Okeke and warned that judicial ambiguity is steadily eroding the potency of Nigeria’s courts and endangering public trust in the rule of law.
“Once feared and respected, court judgments are now treated with casual disregard, he argued, because rulings are often so vague that they leave room for endless partisan interpretations.” He said.
Legal Ambiguities and the Politics of Interpretation
Mr. Okeke cited recent rulings which, he argued, highlight how vague or selectively interpreted judgments open the door for manipulation.
He pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision on local government autonomy, which affirmed that Nigeria’s 774 councils are entitled to receive funds directly from the Federation Account. Despite the ruling, several state governors have continued to withhold the funds, insisting on maintaining control.
Okeke also referenced the Labour Party leadership dispute, where the Supreme Court ruled that Julius Abure’s tenure had expired but emphasized that internal matters should be settled by the party itself. “The certified true copy of that judgment is available,” he noted. “Yet Abure continues to issue nomination forms as though nothing happened, while INEC has failed to enforce the ruling.”
READ ALSO: Atiku Seeks Investigation into ‘Inflated’ Voter Figures in Osun
He further mentioned the case of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, where conflicting interpretations of a Federal High Court judgment in her dispute with the Senate leadership generated public confusion. According to him, the controversy showed how politicians and even lawyers often twist verdicts to suit partisan interests, leaving citizens uncertain about what the courts actually decided.
Mr. Eze on the other hand described ambiguous Judgements as “a cancer fueled largely by politicians who manipulate the system to serve narrow interests, leaving ordinary citizens confused about what courts actually decide”.
He cited recent controversies from conflicting rulings in Rivers and Kano, to leadership disputes in the PDP, and the contested judgment in Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case as examples of how ambiguity breeds chaos, undermines democracy, and ridicules the judiciary before the world.
For him, the core problem lies in judgments that are not written for the public.
“Court decisions should be clear to every citizen, not just lawyers,” he insisted, urging the judiciary, the NBA, and the NJC to push back against this trend.
READ ALSO:Akpabio Challenges Court Order Recalling Suspended Natasha
Mr. Eze also proposed that courts adopt official spokespersons to immediately clarify rulings and counter misinterpretations.
Justice Without Clarity Is No Justice- Legal Experts Warn
Legal practitioners who spoke to Pinnacle Daily agree that ambiguity in court rulings undermines both enforcement and perception of justice.
Vincent Adodo, Esq., told Pinnacle Daily that vague or imprecise judgments amount to “pyrrhic victories.” According to him, when a judgment is unclear, it becomes difficult to determine the true winner or the relief actually granted.
“Courts are the last hope of the common man. If outcomes are ambiguous, the public will see them as products of compromise or underhand dealings,” he said.
Adodo stressed that clarity in judicial pronouncements is essential not only for enforcement but also for public trust, since perception is as important as reality in matters of justice.
Media’s Role in Amplifying Confusion
Another lawyer, Kelechi Anwu, Esq., Head of Anwu & Associates, emphasized that judicial interpretation should remain plain and precise.
“Law is made for the people, and its interpretation should promote peace and public policy,” he noted. “Where courts indulge in verbosity or technicalities at the expense of substance, justice is defeated.”
Both Adodo and Anwu cautioned that the media, often the public’s only source of judicial information, can either clarify or worsen confusion.
Poor understanding of legal language, political bias, or sensationalism sometimes leads to misreporting of judgments. “The media is the lens of society,” Anwu observed. “But when that lens is clouded by propaganda or sentiment, it distorts justice in the eyes of the public.”
Calls for Urgent Reform
Analysts and Legal experts are calling for urgent reforms to restore clarity and independence in Nigeria’s judiciary. They want judges to issue certified rulings within 48 hours, the NJC to enforce the usage of unambiguous language, and appointments of judges should be strictly based on merit.
READ ALSO: FG’s Shea Nut Export Ban: Experts Seek Urgent Clarity on Policy Implementation
While the Legal experts in this report advised Lawyers to file precise reliefs and avoid exploiting technicalities, while the media must strengthen legal reporting standards to prevent misinformation.
Mr. Nonso Okeke warned that executive interference threatens democracy, while Kenneth Eze stressed that judgments should be clear to all citizens, not just lawyers, and proposed court spokespersons to prevent misinterpretation.
Both analysts agreed the judiciary stands at a crossroads to either reclaim its role as the last hope of the common man or risk losing public trust and destabilizing Nigeria’s democracy.
Rafiyat Sadiq is a political, justice, and human rights reporter with Pinnacle Daily, known for fearless reporting and impactful storytelling. At Pinnacle Daily, she brings clarity and depth to issues shaping governance, democracy, and the protection of citizens’ rights.
