Preserving Judicial Independence in Nigeria: Let Court Registrars or PR Officers Represent, Not Top Judges, Amid Wike's Political Influence

The Vital Need for Judicial Independence in Nigeria: Recognizing and Resisting Apparent Political Manipulations by Wike; Court Registrars or Public Relations Officers Should Represent Top Judicial Officials to Preserve Integrity and Public Trust Amid Rising Concerns of Influence and Corruption

The increasingly visible alignment between Nigeria’s judiciary and the politically loud Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has ignited intense public concerns about judicial independence and impartiality. In July, former Chief Justice Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola presided over a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Court of Appeal complex in Abuja, a project valued at 37 billion naira. This was followed in October by another event, led by Wike himself, celebrating the flag-off for a new judges' quarters project in Abuja. This ceremony featured the presence of Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Court of Appeal President Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, who stood alongside Wike, lending their authority to his cause. This consistent public alignment between the judiciary’s highest figures and Wike, a powerful political figure embroiled in multiple legal controversies, casts a troubling shadow over the judiciary’s claim to neutrality.

In democratic societies worldwide, judicial independence forms the bedrock of governance and public trust. The judiciary must stand above political manipulation and influence. Yet, Nigeria’s judiciary appears to be faltering under the shadow of Wike’s overt political maneuvers. Wike, an astute politician with a reported reputation for ferocity and volatile behavior, has cultivated a well-documented influence within Nigeria’s political and judicial spheres. His strategic invitations to top judicial figures serve as psychological and political ploys, allowing him to project an image of control and influence over the courts. This display of judiciary and politics in unison—the “odd marriage” between top judges and a politically charged figure like Wike—would be an anomaly in most stable democracies. There, such open affiliations would be recognized as dangerous and inappropriate, severely undermining the court’s independence and the public’s trust in its impartiality.

The stakes are higher in Nigeria, where perceptions of judicial corruption are already alarmingly widespread. Wike’s legal confrontations, particularly his battles with the Rivers State governor, add an explosive layer to the implications of these public associations. While there is no direct claim here that Wike has influenced judicial decisions, the optics alone are damning. Wike, who has managed to position himself as an indomitable figure in Nigerian politics, is not unfamiliar with accusations of manipulating the courts. The Rivers governor has repeatedly alleged that Wike and his supporters have obtained “fraudulent judgments” to serve their political agendas, a charge that resonates strongly with the Nigerian public. This general public perception, rooted in distrust of the judicial system, creates a setting where Wike’s associations with top judges fuel fears of favoritism and raise questions about the judiciary’s impartiality.

Expressively, the judiciary’s presence at Wike’s events serves as tacit validation of his influence, allowing him to create a public image of control over the courts. This repeated exposure further entrenches public suspicion of judicial corruption, exploiting a psychological phenomenon where people’s pre-existing mistrust is only reinforced by evidence of collusion. By being seen at events spearheaded by Wike, top judicial figures risk falling into a trap of legitimizing his influence, inadvertently becoming tools in his broader political maneuvering.

Psychologically, the repeated presence of Nigeria’s top judges at Wike’s events functions as a tacit endorsement of his power, reinforcing the impression that he holds sway within the judiciary. By attending these ceremonies, these justices lend their credibility to Wike, allowing him to build a powerful narrative of influence over the courts. This dynamic taps into a psychological phenomenon known as “confirmation bias”—where people’s pre-existing beliefs, particularly those skeptical of judicial integrity, are reinforced by perceived evidence of collusion. As these judges continue to align publicly with Wike, they risk entrenching a perception of corruption and complicity, thereby deepening the very distrust they are tasked with countering. In a nation where confidence in the rule of law is essential for governance and stability, this public perception is devastating.

Consider the psychological trap at play here: Wike’s savvy use of these events paints a subtle but powerful picture of dominance over the judiciary. Wike’s history of unpredictable anger suggests that he would not react favorably if his legal battles—particularly those involving his supporters in Rivers State—failed to yield outcomes in his favor. By associating so publicly with Wike, top judicial figures not only risk their reputations but also the judiciary’s independence. The Nigerian judiciary’s actions are tantamount to lending an endorsement to Wike’s causes, thus tethering their impartiality to a man whose influence and intentions are widely seen as self-serving and politically charged.

The question, then, is profound: what were these Chief Justices thinking when they chose to attend these events, or do they simply not care about the consequences of their actions? Their decision to align so visibly with a figure as polarizing as Wike, especially one with ongoing court cases and a history of alleged judicial manipulation, raises a critical question about the judiciary’s sense of duty to the Nigerian people. As the very gatekeepers of justice, these judges are entrusted with safeguarding the principles of impartiality and independence. In these instances, their actions suggest either a profound miscalculation or an alarming indifference to the trust placed in them by the Nigerian public.

While infrastructural projects like the judges' quarters and court buildings may be beneficial, it is crucial that the judiciary refrains from allowing its leaders to participate directly in politically orchestrated events, particularly when those events are spearheaded by figures with vested interests in the outcomes of judicial decisions. Instead, chief court registrars or public relations officers should be appointed to represent top judicial officials at such events. This delegation would preserve a necessary buffer, protecting the judiciary’s dignity and maintaining the public’s trust.

Going forward, the Nigerian judiciary must recognize the gravity of its role in a society plagued by political manipulation and corruption. These recent associations demand a corrective course. Instead of appearing at politically charged events, the Chief Justices must send court registrars or public relations officers as their representatives. This simple yet crucial step would create a buffer, preserving the judiciary’s dignity and distancing its leaders from potential political influences. It is a corrective measure that would demonstrate an active commitment to upholding judicial independence, assuring the public that their justices remain beyond the reach of political stratagems.

The Nigerian judiciary must urgently reassess its public affiliations. Public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality is at an all-time low, and for good reason. Aligning with political figures like Wike, who carry the weight of multiple legal controversies and a reputation for volatile reactions, only serves to erode the judiciary’s credibility. To restore public confidence, Nigeria’s judiciary must visibly and consistently distance itself from political figures who threaten its independence. Only through a renewed commitment to impartiality can Nigeria’s judiciary hope to reinforce the rule of law and demonstrate that justice remains a steadfast pillar of Nigerian democracy. The time for corrective action is now; failure to address these associations will only deepen the nation’s disillusionment with a system that should be its last bastion of fairness and accountability.

The President, though constitutionally bound not to interfere in judicial matters, cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the brewing crisis. While respecting judicial independence is essential, a judiciary perceived as compromised and politically manipulated presents a national security risk that the President cannot ignore. If Nigerians continue to lose trust in the courts, seeing them as merely tools for the politically powerful, this growing disillusionment could spark widespread unrest, destabilizing the country and threatening the constitutional order.

A revolt could arise, not only from the public's frustration but also from state governments challenging federal authority, as they witness what they perceive as biased judicial decisions undermining the principles of justice. In such a scenario, the President would be forced to face the harsh reality that unchecked judicial corruption has escalated beyond containment, potentially inciting civil disobedience and destabilizing the democratic framework. This situation underscores the urgent need for the executive to champion judicial reforms that reinforce impartiality and restore public trust, ensuring the judiciary remains a pillar of stability rather than a catalyst for revolt.

These repeated associations between top judicial officials and a politically charged figure like Wike can set off a cascade of destabilizing effects, ultimately leading to a constitutional breakdown. When the judiciary, the institution meant to uphold the rule of law, is perceived as aligned with powerful political actors, it erodes the very foundation of impartial justice. This erosion fuels distrust, particularly among state governments and citizens, who may begin to view the judiciary as a tool manipulated by political elites rather than an independent body. The frustration is compounded when court decisions appear to favor figures like Wike, igniting a sense of injustice that can rapidly spread across social and political lines.

If the judiciary continues down this path, it risks becoming an irritant in the public eye, no longer seen as a safeguard for citizens’ rights but as a compromised institution catering to the interests of a select few. This perception can escalate tensions, potentially leading to public revolt as citizens and state governments alike lose faith in the legal system's integrity. In such a scenario, constitutional stability is jeopardized, as people may increasingly reject judicial rulings and take matters into their own hands. This breakdown in judicial authority would ultimately threaten Nigeria’s democratic structure, highlighting the urgent need for the judiciary to reassert its independence and restore public confidence.

Prof. John Egbeazien Oshodi
Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at ISCOM University, Weldios University and Walden University.