Senator Seeks Judicial Reforms On Conflicting Supreme Court Rulings

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Senator Neda Imasuen, has raised the alarm over what he described as “very disturbing” conflicting judgements emanating from Nigeria’s Supreme Court, warning that the trend is undermining confidence in the apex court and worsening its workload.

The senator, who represents Edo South Senatorial District, made the remarks during the screening of a Supreme Court nominee by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, where he lamented the increasing incidence of conflicting decisions delivered by courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

Imasuen said the situation had become worrisome, stressing that many of the cases should not have reached the Supreme Court in the first place.

According to him, the acceptance of such cases by the apex court has contributed to congestion on its docket and created what he described as a “self-inflicted” crisis.

“Conflicting judgements of coordinate courts are very, very disturbing,” the lawmaker said. “It continues despite the concerns that have been raised. Sometimes I wonder why the Supreme Court even accepts some of these cases. By accepting them, you create this injury that has piled up your dockets. It shouldn’t be so at all.”

In a statement by his media aide, Moshood Karim yesterday, the lawmaker argued that the challenge confronting the Supreme Court is not necessarily the number of justices appointed to the bench, but the absence of an effective filtering mechanism to determine which cases truly deserve the attention of the apex court.

“It is not the number of judges we appoint to the Supreme Court. It is how we filter the cases that go there,” Imasuen said, adding that the situation was now “out of control” and required urgent institutional reforms.

The senator also questioned the culture among some legal practitioners of pursuing appeals to the Supreme Court as a matter of routine, suggesting that professional considerations may be encouraging lawyers to take virtually every case to the apex court.

“How do we manage to take every case to the Supreme Court?” he asked. “Is it because, to be a senior advocate, you need to have certain cases heard at the Supreme Court? Is that why many lawyers rush to take every matter there just to have that record?”

Imasuen further called for a review of how electoral cases are handled, noting that election-related disputes often overwhelm the Supreme Court and disrupt the hearing of regular cases.

“Do all electoral cases have to go to the Supreme Court?” he queried. “Do we need special courts to deal with electoral matters? During election periods, it appears that regular cases are put in abeyance so attention can be paid to election disputes. These are issues we must consider if we are to reduce the workload at the Supreme Court.”

He urged the Senate to explore mechanisms for disciplining erring judges and strengthening case-management processes to restore order and predictability to the judicial system.

Imasuen said only a holistic approach, addressing judicial discipline, case filtering and structural reforms, would help arrest what he described as a growing crisis in Nigeria’s highest court.