Preserving The Integrity Of The Judiciary: Examining Ways To Maintain Public Trust And Confidence In The Judiciary

By C.K. Anyanwu Ll.M & Dr. Ekanem-Otu

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the decline of public trust in the Nigerian judiciary and looks at practical ways to restore confidence in the court system. Recently, citizens have become sceptical of the courts because of issues like political influence, conflicting judgments, and lawyers manipulating the legal process. The authors employed a doctrinal legal research method which incorporates both primary and secondary sources of law and legal materials. The article explains the basic meaning of judicial integrity and outline the ethical duties that both judges and lawyers must respect. It points out three major problems damaging the Nigeria legal system today: the lack of merit in how judges are appointed, the confusion caused when courts of coordinate jurisdiction give conflicting judgments, and the growing trend of forum shopping. To solve these problems, the article suggests that the judiciary must become completely financially independent from the government. It also calls for strict punishment for judges who ignore judicial precedent or delay delivering their judgments. In the end, the article reminds both the bench and the bar that they share the responsibility of saving the courts from collapse.

 INTRODUCTION

In the turbulent waters of a developing democracy, the three arms of government are often described as the tripod upon which the state rests. But if we look closer, the Judiciary is more than just a third arm. It is the stabilizer, the heavy weight at the bottom of a ship that keeps it upright when the winds of politics and the waves of social unrest threaten to capsize the vessel of state. When the anchor shifts or fails, the ship flips. In Nigeria, the sacred trust of judicial power, as enshrined in Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, is the only thing standing between a civil society and the chaos of self-help. Furthermore, in the classic Nigerian classroom, we were all taught that the Judiciary is the last hope of the common man. It is a beautiful sentiment, but lately, that hope has felt increasingly frail. For a legal system to function, it doesn’t just need grand buildings and thick law books; it needs the very life of public confidence. For too long, the last hope has felt more like a nostalgic quote than a living reality. When a citizen feels that going to court is either a waste of time or a predetermined game, the very foundation of the rule of law begins to crumble. The 2023 and 2024 post-election litigations served as a massive stress test for our courts. Whether the judgments were legally sound or not is a matter for academic debate, but the public’s reaction was clear: it was deeply sceptical. At the 2026 NBA-SLP Conference in Lagos earlier this year, a recurring theme echoed through the halls: we are the ‘Guardians of the Scales’. But the question remains, how do we protect those scales when the public is convinced, they are weighted in favour of the highest bidder? Against this backdrop, things are clearly beginning to change. Reports suggest that while the road to recovery is long, the roadmap is finally being drawn.[1] To move forward, we must look inward and ask: how do we polish the shield of judicial integrity? This article examines the deep-seated decay, the trickery of legal loopholes, and the urgent reforms needed to ensure the judge’s authority remains an instrument of justice rather than a tool of convenience.

1. Definition of Terms

1. Judicial Integrity

In the simplest terms, judicial integrity is the moral backbone of the legal system. It is the quality of being honest, impartial, and consistent. It means that a judge’s decision is guided strictly by the law ant’s yes of the case, rather than by personal gain, political pressure, or outside influence.[2] When a judiciary has integrity, it’s yes is yes, and it’s no is no, regardless of who is standing before the court. The court has gone through a most unfortunate phase in the judicial annals of this great country, for this court to be disrupted by partisan politics in the course of delivering its judgment. it is hoped this will not happen again. Well meaning citizens should rally round the court to protect its independence and integrity for the assurances and contribution of orderly society.[3]

1. Public Trust

Public trust is the lifeblood of the court system; without it, the judiciary simply cannot breathe or function. it is the collective belief of the citizens that the courts are fair, neutral, and reliable. It is not necessarily an agreement with every judgment delivered, but a confidence that the process used to reach that judgment was transparent and honest.[4] Without this trust, the law loses its power to resolve conflicts, as people will no longer see the court as a legitimate referee.

• Rule of law

The rule of law is the principle that no one, not the President, the Governor, or the wealthy businessman, is above the law. It ensures that the laws are clear, publicized, and applied equally to everyone.[5] In a system governed by the rule of law, justice is not a luck of the draw or a game of chance; it is a predictable outcome based on established rules that apply to all citizens.[6] Nigeria has adopted the precepts of constitutionalism; the rule of law is therefore the guidepost for all authorities, persons, and institution under our constitutional democracy. There is therefore an ineffable and sacrosanct duty to ensure the protection of the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by law.[7]

2. The Role of Lawyers in Upholding Justice

The ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners are foundational to the credibility and functionality of the legal system. In Nigeria, these responsibilities are codified in the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC) 2023, which set the professional standards expected of every member of the Bar.[8] A lawyer is not merely a representative of clients but a minister in the temple of justice an officer of the court whose primary obligation is to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of judicial processes.[9] Among the most fundamental duties of a lawyer is the obligation to maintain respect for the court and to avoid conduct that could bring the administration of justice into disrepute.[10] This respect is not one of blind allegiance, but of professional decorum and fidelity to legal process. Lawyers are prohibited from knowingly misleading the court, making frivolous claims, or suppressing material facts that may be essential to the just resolution of a case.[11] Indeed, the duty of candour to the court supersedes a lawyer’s obligation to secure an outcome favourable to the client at all costs. Furthermore, lawyers are required to eschew unethical practices, including forgery, misrepresentation, abuse of court process, and other forms of misconduct that may compromise the impartiality of adjudication. The integrity of legal practice is essential not just for individual reputation but for public confidence in the legal system.[12] For instance, the misappropriation of client funds a recurring problem in professional discipline proceedings is considered professional misconduct under Rule 23 of the RPC 2023, and often results in severe sanctions including disbarment.[13] Such behaviour erodes the trust placed in legal practitioners and reflects negatively on the entire profession. An often overlooked yet critical ethical requirement is the duty to avoid dilatory tactics or procedural gamesmanship that result in unnecessary delay of proceedings.[14] In a judicial system already plagued by systemic congestion and prolonged litigation, it is ethically indefensible for lawyers to exploit loopholes, seek repeated adjournments, or raise objections designed to stall justice. The maxim justice delayed is justice denied becomes especially relevant here. Lawyers, as officers of the court, are obligated to work collaboratively with the Bench to ensure that justice is not only done but done expeditiously and efficiently. The lawyer’s role is thus dual: to advocate zealously for their clients while remaining faithful to the broader ideals of justice. This duality requires a high level of professional maturity, legal knowledge, and ethical discipline. When properly upheld, the ethical code forms the backbone of the legal profession’s contribution to democratic stability and social order. Conversely, widespread ethical breaches weaken the rule of law, embolden corruption, and breed public cynicism toward the courts. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), established under the Legal Practitioners Act, plays a pivotal role in maintaining these standards.[15] Through its adjudicative processes, the LPDC has sanctioned erring lawyers, thereby reinforcing the ethical guardrails of legal practice. However, more proactive professional education, mentorship, and peer accountability are needed to promote preventive ethics ensuring that lawyers internalise their professional values before misconduct arises. Ethical lawyering is not ancillary to justice delivery; it is central to it. Lawyers who act with integrity, civility, and diligence help preserve the sanctity of the legal profession, while those who violate their ethical obligations contribute to a justice system that falters in the eyes of those it seeks to serve.

3. The Role of Judges in the Justice System

Judges occupy a unique and pivotal position within the justice system. As neutral arbiters, they are entrusted with the sacred duty of interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and upholding the rule of law in a manner that commands public confidence and affirms institutional legitimacy.[16] Their responsibility extends beyond the mere application of legal rules to encompass the broader ideals of fairness, equity, and impartiality. The famous Socratic aphorism ‘to hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly, and decide impartially’ encapsulates the philosophical underpinnings of judicial conduct.[17] These principles remain as relevant today as they were in ancient jurisprudence, serving as a moral compass for the modern judiciary. In practice, judicial impartiality requires more than the absence of overt bias; it demands the appearance of neutrality, the exercise of restraint, and an unwavering commitment to justice even in the face of political pressure, public opinion, or personal beliefs.[18] A judge must ensure that their decisions are grounded solely in the evidence presented and the applicable law. Failure to do so risks undermining the legitimacy of judicial proceedings and, by extension, the entire legal system. This is especially critical in pluralistic societies like Nigeria, where ethnic, religious, and political affiliations often exert subtle influence on public institutions.[19] Judges must therefore guard against both conscious and unconscious bias, a phenomenon that has garnered increasing attention in legal and psychological scholarship.[20] While conscious bias might manifest in clear favouritism, unconscious bias is more insidious lurking beneath awareness and often affecting decisions through cultural stereotypes, prior experiences, or unacknowledged assumptions. Judicial training and continuing legal education can help mitigate these risks, but ultimately, it is the individual judge’s ethical commitment to fairness that serves as the final bulwark. Moreover, judicial independence is the cornerstone of any credible justice system. This independence must be both institutional and personal: judges must be free from external influences such as executive interference or media intimidation, but they must also possess the internal fortitude to resist flattery, fear, or prejudice.[21] The principle of independence is enshrined in international instruments such as the basic principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, which emphasise that the judiciary shall decide matters impartially, without any restrictions or improper influences.[22] In Nigeria, breaches of these standards whether through corrupt inducement, political patronage, or lax adjudication have far-reaching consequences. Public trust erodes when courts are perceived as venues for predetermined outcomes rather than reasoned justice. As such, safeguarding judicial impartiality is not a matter of internal court policy; it is a national imperative that affects democratic stability, investor confidence, and social cohesion. It is also incumbent upon the Bar to reinforce these values. Lawyers must hold judges accountable through respectful challenge and appellate review where necessary, while also upholding their own duty to present arguments candidly and ethically. The synergy between a principled Bench and a responsible Bar ensures that justice is not only done but is seen to be done a doctrine fundamental to the rule of law.

4. Challenges of Nigeria Judiciary

We must be honest; the Nigerian public is currently looking at the temple of justice with a degree of scepticism. This isn’t just about corruption in the way we usually talk about it; it’s about a crisis of predictability. Below are the major issues that have bedevilled Nigeria Judiciary.

1. The Appointment Process of Judicial Officers

One of the loudest whispers in our legal corridors is that judicial appointments are becoming family property passed down to children or political rewards. The National Judicial Policy is very clear; appointments must be merit based.[23] We need a transparent process where the most brilliant legal minds, not necessarily the most connected ones, ascend the bench. When a judge earns their seat through pure intellectual and moral rigor, they owe no favours to political godfathers. This is the first step in preventing political patronage from weakening the Bench. For instance, the 2025 elevation of Justice Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole to the Supreme Court served as a landmark case study.[24] For once, the conversation wasn’t about who he knew, but the depth of his legal wisdom and his track record of character. This is the blueprint we must follow if we want the public to believe in the bench again. Equally also important, The Chief Justice of Nigeria 2025 pledge for open judicial appointments must become law.[25] The Nigeria Bar Association should have a statutory, non-negotiable seat in screening candidates to ensure only the best of amongst the rest are appointed.

1. Conflicting Judgment of Court of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction

Few things damage public confidence faster than seeing two courts of the same rank deliver completely opposite rulings on the same point of law. When this happens, the law stops feeling like a steady pillar of justice and starts looking like a game of pick your favourite flavour, where the outcome depends entirely on which courtroom a litigant happens to walk into.

This inconsistency creates a crisis of certainty within our legal system. When courts of coordinate jurisdiction, such as different divisions of the Court of Appeal, reach divergent conclusions on the same issue, they effectively strip the law of its predictability. As noted by legal scholars, this judicial fragmentation does more than just confuse lawyers; it undermines the very authority of the judiciary, as citizens can no longer rely on the law to provide a uniform standard of conduct.[26]

A classic example of this was the long-standing debate over the competence of applications filed by multiple applicants under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. For years, different divisions of the Court of Appeal held starkly conflicting views on whether such joinders were permissible, leaving litigants in a state of judicial limbo. It was only through the Supreme Court’s intervention in TOTAL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (NIG) LTD v. OKWU & ORS[27], that this confusion was finally put to rest. Prior to that, Court of Appeal of different divisions held distinct decision on the competence of an application filed by multiple applicants to enforce their rights under the fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.[28] These attitudes of Court of Appeal delivering conflicting judgment is a shame to our judiciary to say the least.

While the Supreme Court serves as the final arbiter, the frequency with which lower courts allow these conflicts to fester is, to put it mildly, a stain on the reputation of our judiciary. If the ‘Guardians of the Scales’ cannot speak with one voice on basic legal principles, the public can hardly be blamed for questioning the fairness of the entire process

• Forum Shopping

When parties can shop around for a favourable judge in a different state to get a conflicting order on the same matter, the law stops looking like a set of rules and starts looking like a game of chance. thus, it is only in Nigeria that court will give judgment, and the two opposing sides will be rejoicing, both claiming victories. Having secured judgment, you would need another court to interpret it. Another instance is where an issue arose in Abia State of which Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear, either of the parties would abandon the Federal High Court in Abia State for the one in Abuja, simply because he is confident the court there would give him judgment. This idea is backlash to the Nigeria Judiciary as parties now choose the court that would hear their matters. Hence, when people believe that the referee is part of the game, they stop playing by the rules. That is the birth of anarchy.

5. The Way forward

To restore trust, we must address the structural rot. Integrity is not a vague concept; it is built on three very practical pillars.

1. Financial Independence

It is a fundamental truth of human nature; he who pays the piper calls the tune. A judge who must lobby the Executive for a new vehicle, or whose court staff must go on strike as we have seen with Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria just to enforce section 121(3) of the Constitution, is a judge under pressure.[29] True judicial independence is impossible without total financial autonomy. The Judiciary’s budget must be automatic and untouched by the Executive. A judge should never have to look to a Governor for the basic tools of their trade. Furthermore, we saw the Supreme Court secure fiscal independence for Local Governments in 2024.[30] Now, the judiciary must demand that same energy for itself. Under section 121(3) of the Constitution, the judiciary shouldn’t be a tenant of the executive. Real independence starts with a direct line to the consolidated revenue fund.

1. Adherence to Judicial Precedence

Integrity is more than just refusing a bribe; it is about intellectual integrity. The National Judicial Council must look beyond financial crimes and start addressing judicial incompetence. When a court delivers a perverse judgment that ignores decades of settled Supreme Court precedents (Stare Decisis), it damages the law just as much as a bribe does. We need a system where judges are held accountable for the reasoning of their decisions, not just the contents of their bank accounts. Thus, a call for strict adherence to judicial precedent to ensure predictability of the law. We need a system where judges are held accountable for the reasoning of their decisions, not just the contents of their bank accounts. Thus, a call for strict adherence to judicial precedent to ensure predictability of the law. We are beginning to see the practical reality of this accountability. For instance, following its May 2026 meeting, the NJC suspended two High Court judges, Justice Ibrahim Shekarau of Nasarawa and Justice Edward Okpe of the FCT, for one year without pay due to procedural bad faith and blatant breaches of fair hearing through ex-parte orders. This sends an unmistakable signal that the era of treating procedural rules as optional guidelines is drawing to a close.[31]

• Abolishing Delay in Delivery of Judgment

The National Judicial Council March 2026 report sent shockwaves through the divisions.[32] By aggressively sanctioning judges who failed to deliver judgments within the constitutional 90-day time frame as provided under section 294(1) of the Constitution[33] of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Council signalled that laziness and delayed justice are no longer administrative lapses, they are integrity issues

6. CONCLUSION

Preserving the integrity of our judiciary is a collective burden that cuts across these bodies, the bench and the bar. To the bench, your judgment is your legacy. Let your judgment be so grounded in law and judicial precedent that even the losing party leaves the courtroom feeling they were heard, even if they were not upheld. For the bar, we must stop being mercenaries of delay. Filing of frivolous motions to arrest judgment or endless stays of proceedings are a disservice to the profession. We are ministers in the temple of Justice, not saboteurs of its gates.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
• Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009
• Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, LFN 2004
• Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023

Cases

• Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors (2024) LPELR-62576 (SC)
• LPDC v Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 7) 300
• Nigeria Bar Association v Okeie (LPDC/ABJ/2017)
• Total Exploration & Production (Nig) Ltd v Okwu & Ors (2024) LPELR-62623 (SC)

Books

• Abel RL, Lawyers in the Dock: Learning from Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings (Oxford University Press 2008)
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
• Aturu B, Judges and the Rule of Law in Nigeria (Legal Resources Consortium 2011)
• Eso K, Thoughts on Law and Jurisprudence (MIJ Publishers 1990)

Journal Articles

• Atsenuwa A, ‘The Judiciary and the Challenges of Multiculturalism in Nigeria’ (2020) 12(1) African Journal of Justice and Human Rights 75
• Kang J, ‘Implicit Bias in the Courtroom’ (2012) 59(5) UCLA Law Review 1124
• Oraegbunam IKE, ‘The Challenge of Conflicting Judgments of Courts of Coordinate Jurisdiction in Nigeria’ (2022) 13(1) Nnamdi Azikiwe University Law Journal 118.

Reports, Speeches, and Newspaper Articles

• Kekere-Ekun K, ‘Opening Address at the 2025 All Nigeria Judges Conference’ (Abuja, November 2025)
• National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy (NJC 2016)
• National Judicial Council, ‘Performance Evaluation Report of Judicial Officers for the First Quarter of 2026’ (NJC March 2026)
• Nigeria Integrity Watch, The 2026 Judicial Integrity Index: A Roadmap for Institutional Recovery (NIW Press 2026)
• ‘NJC Recommends Elevation of Justice Oyewole and 11 Others to Supreme Court’ The Guardian (Lagos, 14 October 2024) 3
• United Nations, ‘Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary’ (Adopted 1985, endorsed 2006) https://www.ohchr.org accessed 09 May 2026

 

[1] Nigeria Integrity Watch, The 2026 Judicial Integrity Index: A Roadmap for Institutional Recovery (NIW Press 2026) 14-22.

[2] Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002, Value 1 (Independence) and Value 3 (Integrity).

[3] Ukachukwu v. Uba (No. 2) (2005) 9 nwlr (Pt. 930) 370 C.A.

[4] R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1KB 256 (Lord Hewart CJ famously stating that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done).

[5] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s1.

[6] AV Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution (10^th edn, Macmillan 1959) 188.

[7] Genesis Fast Food & Events Centre, Porthacourt & Anor v. Aboli & Ors (2026) lelr-83861 (CA).

[8] Rule 1-3, Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2003 (RPC).

[9] Kayode Eso, Thoughts on Law and Jurisprudence (MIJ Publishers 1990) 125.

[10] Rule 30, RPC, 2023.

[11] Rule 32; LPDC v Fawehinmi (1985) 2 nwlr (Pt. 7) 300.

[12] Richard L Abel, Lawyers in the Dock: Learning from Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings (Oxford University Press 2008) 63.

[13] Nigeria Bar Association v. Okeie (LPDC/ABJ/2017).

[14] Rule 30, RPC, 2023.

[15] Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, LFN 2004, S 10(1).

[16] Fuller, op cit

[17] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, in reference to distributive justice and the judge as mediator of fairness.

[18] Fuller, op cit.

[19] Ayo Atsenuwa, ‘The Judiciary and the Challenges of Multiculturalism in Nigeria’ African Journal of Justice and Human Rights, 2020:12(1):75.

[20] Jerry Kang, ‘Implicit Bias in the Courtroom’ UCLA Law Review, 2012:59(5):1124.

[21] Bamidele Aturu, Judges and the Rule of Law in Nigeria (Legal Resources Consortium 2011) 51.

[22] United Nations, ‘Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary’ (adopted 1985, endorsed 2006) https://www.ohchr.org accessed 09 May 2026.

[23] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy (NJC 2016) para 2.1.

[24] NJC Recommends Elavtion of Justice Oyewole and 11 Others to Supreme Court’ The Guardian (Lagos, 14 October 2024) 3.

[25] Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Opening Address at the 2025 All Nigeria Judges Conference’ (Abuja, November 2025).

[26] Ikenga K.E. Oraegbunam, ‘The Challenge of Conflicting Judgments of Courts of Coordinate Jurisdiction in Nigeria’ (2022) 1391) Nnamdi Azikiwe University Law Journal 118.

[27] (2024) LPELR-62623 (SC).

[28] Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.

[29] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 121 (3).

[30] Attorney General of the Federation v Attorney General of Abia State & 35 Ors (2024) LPELR-62576 (SC).

[31] Abuse of Ex-parte Orders: NJC Suspends Nasarawa, FCT Judges Without Pay, Upholds Retirement of Eight Imo Judges Over Age Falsification.’ The Nigeria Lawyer (May 2026) https://thenigerialawyer.com/iabuse-of-exparte-orders-njc-suspends-nasarawa-fct-judges-without-pay-upholds-retirement-of-eight-imo-judges-over-age-falsification/ accessed 13 June 2026.

[32] National Judicial Council, ‘Performance Evaluation Report of Judicial Officers for the First Quarter of 2026’ (NJC March 2026).

[33] Constitution (n 6), s 294(1).

Follow Our WhatsApp Channel ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials

Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation

______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence

Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via: 0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888 Website: www.alexandernigeria.com

______________________________________________________________________