Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Okutepa, has warned that the habit of judging court decisions by the political fortunes of litigants is damaging public faith in the country’s justice system.
Okutepa said many Nigerians, including some lawyers, now ask whether a judgment favours a preferred politician or party instead of asking whether it is grounded in the facts, the law and sound reasoning.
In his view, the same voices that praise the judiciary on one day condemn it on the next, depending on whose interests a ruling serve.
He lamented that some lawyers analyse judgments purely from partisan considerations, turning their professional learning into a tool for defending political interests rather than a means of testing whether justice has been done.
A judgment, he said, is not sound simply because it benefits one’s allies, nor is it wrong because opponents have prevailed. The legal profession loses credibility when its standards shift with the political identities of litigants.
The senior lawyer, in a post on his X handle on Saturday, stressed that justice demands judges who are independent in every meaningful sense: free from political control, financial inducement, personal relationships, partisan sympathy and fear of consequences.
That independence, he said, must show in the courage to apply the law impartially, protect rights and rule against the powerful whenever the facts and the law require it.
Okutepa acknowledged that perceptions of political interference have badly hurt confidence in judicial institutions.
While an unpopular judgment does not by itself prove improper influence, he argued that genuine concerns about impartiality cannot be answered merely by demanding respect for the courts.
Trust grows, he said, when judicial conduct, procedures and reasoning give convincing grounds for it, and a judgment delivered without justice in its undiluted form cannot inspire public confidence.
According to him, justice requires fidelity to the law, fairness to the parties, impartial consideration of evidence and honest reasoning, qualities that neither public applause nor partisan satisfaction can supply. Nor can justice be taken to mean whatever outcome a political group desire.
He said lawyers have a duty to examine decisions with intellectual honesty and consistent standards. Defending flawed reasoning because a political ally benefits, or attacking sound reasoning because an opponent succeeds, undermines the very institution lawyers are professionally bound to strengthen.
Respectful, informed criticism serves justice, he added, while partisan justification weakens it.
Okutepa called on the nation’s justice system to return to an approach that builds confidence through fair hearings, principled decisions, transparent administration and demonstrable independence.
Citizens, he said, must be able to approach the courts believing that influence, wealth and political connections will confer no advantage.
The judiciary’s enduring authority, he concluded, rests on the people’s trust that justice will be done. Preserving that trust requires judges and lawyers alike to place justice above political convenience and to uphold the same principles regardless of who wins or loses.
