2027: CJN warns judges against pressure, conflicting orders

Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun warned judges, especially heads of courts, to protect the election dispute process from manipulation. She identified forum shopping, concealment of related proceedings, and attempts to obtain conflicting orders as serious risks. She said political sensitivity, public pressure, and urgency must never replace careful application of the Constitution, Electoral Act, and court rules.

In practice, judges should demand full and frank disclosure of relevant facts. They should check whether similar matters are already before another court. They should also resist urgent applications or ex parte orders when these could give one litigant an improper advantage. Existing procedural safeguards must be followed.

The warning came at the 2026 Roundtable for Heads of Courts in Abuja. Kekere-Ekun urged courts to handle election cases competently, quickly, and impartially. Her message is especially important before 2027, when public confidence will be tested and politically sensitive disputes may increase.

Forum shopping is the practice of taking a dispute, or parts of it, to different courts in search of the most favourable result. The Chief Justice described it as damaging because it undermines consistency and encourages abuse of court processes. It can also expose the judiciary to avoidable public controversy.

A conflict can arise when a litigant files related applications in separate courts without making full disclosure. One court may issue an order affecting a proceeding that another court is already handling. If both orders address the same issue but point in different directions, lawyers, parties, and officials may face uncertainty about which order to follow.

The article does not give a specific case example. It says heads of courts must observe procedural safeguards and act when litigants try to circumvent established processes. Preventing forum shopping is therefore central to protecting judicial integrity and public confidence during election disputes.

Election-related cases can affect political contests and attract intense public interest. That attention places unusual pressure on judges, especially when parties present matters as urgent or politically sensitive. The Chief Justice said courts must remain impartial, courageous, and faithful to the law despite pressure from any quarter.

For example, a judge may receive an urgent application connected with an election dispute. The court must still apply the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and applicable court rules carefully. It must examine the facts, consider related proceedings, and protect fair judicial administration rather than react to public sentiment or political urgency.

Kekere-Ekun raised these concerns at the 2026 Roundtable for Heads of Courts in Abuja. She said the judiciary must be prepared to handle politically sensitive cases without allowing outside influence to shape decisions. The approach matters ahead of the 2027 general elections, when public confidence will face a major test.

The article does not state how many court levels may hear Nigerian election disputes. As established legal background, disputes commonly involve election petition tribunals, the Court of Appeal, and, where permitted, the Supreme Court. Some pre-election matters may begin in a High Court or the Federal High Court, depending on the issue.

Problems arise when related matters proceed in different courts without clear disclosure and coordination. One court may consider facts or remedies that overlap with another proceeding. If separate courts issue inconsistent orders, parties may face uncertainty, proceedings may become harder to manage, and confidence in judicial consistency may weaken.

Kekere-Ekun specifically warned against concealment of related proceedings and attempts to obtain conflicting orders. She urged heads of courts to ensure procedural safeguards are followed. The forward concern is especially strong before 2027, because election cases may involve intense public scrutiny and competing political interests.

Concealing a related proceeding prevents a court from seeing the full picture. An urgent ex parte application, heard without the other side present, can then produce an order that affects an existing case or gives one party an improper advantage. The Chief Justice warned that this threatens the integrity of judicial proceedings.

For example, a litigant could seek urgent relief in one court while a related matter is already pending elsewhere. If the second court does not know about the first case, it may issue an order inconsistent with the earlier proceeding. Full and frank disclosure helps the judge identify overlap and apply the correct procedural safeguards.

Kekere-Ekun said no litigant should manipulate the judicial system in search of a favourable decision. She urged heads of courts to act when attempts to circumvent established processes appear. During election disputes, such conduct could increase public controversy and weaken confidence in the judiciary.

Delays reduce the practical value of a court remedy. The Chief Justice said they impose financial and emotional burdens on litigants and weaken public confidence. When hearings are repeatedly postponed, cases remain unresolved and parties may wait a long time before receiving meaningful justice.

Poor scheduling, inefficient docket management, and failure to monitor inactive cases can prolong proceedings unnecessarily. Heads of courts should know how many cases are pending, how old they are, which categories face the greatest delays, and why they remain unresolved. That information should guide hearing dates and backlog reduction.

Kekere-Ekun identified funding, infrastructure, and judicial manpower as some causes of delay, but said administration can address others. She urged courts to remove concluded matters promptly from active dockets. Faster handling must still protect fair hearing and must not measure efficiency only by disposal numbers.

In practice, judicial independence means applying the Constitution, Electoral Act, and court rules without allowing political interests, public sentiment, or pressure to dictate decisions. Fair hearing means giving litigants a proper opportunity to present their cases and ensuring that decisions are made fairly and competently within a reasonable time.

For an election dispute, a court should scrutinise applications, require relevant disclosures, consider related proceedings, and resist improper ex parte advantages. It should also manage the case efficiently without sacrificing procedural rights. These safeguards help ensure that urgency does not replace lawful decision-making or silence an affected party.

Kekere-Ekun said the judiciary must handle politically sensitive cases with impartiality, courage, and fidelity to law. She also warned that efficiency cannot be measured only by cases disposed of. Protecting independence and fair hearing is essential because public confidence in election adjudication will be tested before and during 2027.