Banner Online News

When the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, took the podium at the opening of the 2025/2026 legal year earlier this week, he did far more than deliver a ceremonial address. His speech was a wake-up call — a sober, unflinching reminder that Nigeria’s judiciary, once revered as the guardian of the Constitution and the last refuge of the oppressed, is now in danger of losing its soul.

Osigwe’s words cut to the heart of a crisis too many have tried to ignore. He spoke of a judiciary that delays justice until it becomes meaningless, that tolerates opaque appointments based on political patronage, and that too often turns a blind eye as bail is weaponised to silence dissent. He described a system increasingly seen not as a neutral arbiter of disputes, but as a marketplace where justice is for sale to the highest bidder.

These are not mere rhetorical flourishes; they reflect a deep and growing public perception that Nigeria’s courts are failing in their most fundamental duty — to dispense justice impartially, transparently, and without fear or favour. The implications of this failure are profound.

The Judiciary as the Soul of Democracy

A functioning judiciary is the cornerstone of every democracy. Legislatures may enact laws and executives may enforce them, but it is the courts that interpret and breathe life into the constitution, protect the rights of citizens, and hold those in power accountable. When the judiciary falters, the entire edifice of democracy is shaken.

Osigwe’s emphasis on delays in deciding constitutional cases is a case in point. When matters affecting federalism, governance or fundamental rights languish in the courts for years — as seen with challenges to states of emergency — it signals that the judiciary is either unable or unwilling to act as the stabilising force it was designed to be. Justice delayed, in such cases, is not merely justice denied; it is democracy imperilled.

Integrity Begins with the Bench

Equally troubling is the NBA president’s criticism of the judicial appointment process. A judiciary’s strength depends on the quality, independence and integrity of those who serve on the bench. Yet, when appointments are driven by connections rather than competence, or when they disproportionately favour bureaucrats over seasoned practitioners, the result is a bench that may be compliant but not courageous, learned but not independent.

Transparency, merit and broad participation must therefore become the guiding principles of judicial selection. The suggestion of written examinations and objective assessments should not be dismissed as radical; they are common practice in jurisdictions where judicial independence is sacrosanct. Without such reforms, public suspicion of “politicised justice” will only deepen.

Impartial Justice Is the Bedrock of Trust

Perhaps the most disturbing portion of Osigwe’s address was his indictment of how bail is often abused to punish journalists, critics and dissenters. When courts become complicit — by denying bail for bailable offences or setting impossible conditions — they cease to be impartial referees and instead become instruments of oppression.

The impartiality of justice is not a luxury; it is its very essence. A judiciary that appears to favour the powerful over the powerless, or that seems willing to rubber-stamp executive excesses, cannot command the respect or trust of the people. And without public trust, the legitimacy of the entire legal system collapses.

Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done

The challenges Osigwe highlighted — from the neglect of court infrastructure to the glacial pace of digital transformation — may seem administrative, but they too have a bearing on justice. A courtroom that leaks when it rains, or one where proceedings are recorded by hand and files go missing, is not merely inefficient; it symbolises a system that is unprepared to meet the demands of a modern society.

Reforms are therefore needed not only in law but also in logistics. E-filing, digital records, transparent case tracking and adequate infrastructure are not conveniences; they are prerequisites for justice that is both delivered and seen to be delivered.

The Path Forward

Osigwe’s speech should not be dismissed as an annual ritual of self-criticism. It is a blueprint for renewal. The judiciary must seize this moment to cleanse itself, not through rhetoric but through decisive action — by insisting on merit in appointments, expediting critical cases, resisting executive pressure, protecting free speech, disciplining errant officers and embracing technology.

Most importantly, the courts must recommit themselves to the principle that justice must be impartial, transparent, and unambiguous. The law must mean the same thing whether one is rich or poor, powerful or powerless. Anything less is not justice — it is privilege disguised as law.

A Final Word

The health of Nigeria’s democracy will ultimately be measured by the integrity of its judiciary. If the courts stand firm — immune to corruption, unbowed by power, and untainted by bias — they will remain the bulwark of the rule of law. If they falter, the consequences will reach far beyond the courtroom.

Osigwe has sounded the alarm. The question now is whether the judiciary, the legal profession, and the Nigerian state will answer it — or allow the slow erosion of public faith to continue unchecked.