The Traffic

Open-Ended Judgments and the Erosion of Judicial Credibility in Nigeria

The controversy surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s attempted return to the Senate on July 22, 2025, has reignited concerns about the increasing prevalence of ambiguous and inconclusive court judgments in Nigeria—a trend many observers say is chipping away at public trust in the judiciary.

Suspended in March 2025 following a confrontation with Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Akpoti-Uduaghan received a glimmer of relief on July 4, when Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the six-month suspension was “excessive” and overreached legislative powers.

But her hopes of returning to the red chamber were dashed when the Senate refused to recall her, arguing that the court’s decision was merely an “advisory opinion”, not a binding directive.

Senate: No Valid Court Order to Reinstate
Senate spokesman Yemi Adaramodu insisted that the judgment did not compel the legislature to lift the suspension. He described any attempt by Akpoti-Uduaghan to return prematurely as “disruptive” and a violation of the chamber’s integrity and processes.

“Until then, she is respectfully advised to stay away from the Senate chambers and allow due process to run its full course,” Adaramodu warned.

The Senate also maintained that it would “consider the court’s advisory opinion” at the appropriate time, even as it adjourned for a two-month recess—effectively running out the clock on the suspension.

A Judgment That Raises More Questions
While Justice Nyako declared the suspension unjustifiably long—noting that it deprived the senator’s constituents of representation—she stopped short of ordering her immediate recall.

Legal analysts and political observers have questioned why, after establishing that the Senate overreached, the court did not issue a declarative order nullifying the suspension outright.

This stands in stark contrast to earlier rulings in similar cases involving Senators Ali Ndume, Ovie Omo-Agege, Dino Melaye, and others, where the courts not only nullified suspensions but ordered lawmakers reinstated along with their salaries and entitlements.

“What Justice Nyako gave is an advisory opinion. Courts should give judgments, not suggestions,” noted one legal scholar. “She acknowledged a breach of the law but offered no remedy.”

The judge also fined Akpoti-Uduaghan ₦5 million for violating a gag order with a Facebook post, even though the broader context was a challenge against her suspension.

Legal Irony: Appealing While Enforcing?
Critics have also accused the senator of attempting to enforce a judgment she is simultaneously appealing—specifically, the fine. This procedural contradiction, they argue, weakens her moral authority and provides her opponents with grounds to delay compliance.

Judiciary Under Fire
This episode has added to the growing list of incoherent and controversial judicial decisions in recent years. From electoral disputes to intra-party leadership crises, the judiciary is increasingly seen as inconsistent, ambiguous, or outright evasive.

The Supreme Court, too, has come under fire for judgments that have worsened internal conflicts in the PDP and Labour Party, fueling speculation about external influence and a weakening of institutional independence.

Rule of Law or Rule of Discretion?
Observers insist that the issue at stake is no longer Akpoti-Uduaghan herself, but the integrity of the judicial process. Many believe the courts are ceding their responsibility to protect the rule of law by issuing half-measures that give powerful political actors room to maneuver.

“If the judiciary continues down this path, it will no longer be seen as the last hope of the common man, but as a mere referee on standby—blowing no whistle and issuing no cards,” said one constitutional lawyer.

A Slippery Slope for Democracy
In a democracy, an independent, courageous, and principled judiciary is indispensable. Courts must speak clearly, act decisively, and hold all parties accountable—particularly when fundamental rights and representation are on the line.

The failure to do so risks reducing the courts to toothless arbiters, undermining justice, and emboldening authoritarian behavior within other arms of government.

As the Fourth Republic enters a volatile chapter, clarity, consistency, and courage from the judiciary may be the only antidote to creeping democratic decay. Without this, Nigeria risks descending into a state where laws exist, but justice does not.

By Haruna Yakubu Haruna