CHIDI ANSELM ODINKALU contends that the judiciary tends to prioritise power over people
The annual ritual of the opening of the judicial year at Nigeria’s Supreme Court is an occasion for pomp, ceremony, and celebration. It usually marks the admission of a new set of lawyers into the sequined ranks of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SANs). This year, 68 made the cut. On Monday 12 October, at the main courtroom of the Supreme Court in Abuja, they formally joined the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN).
Amidst the backslapping and celebration, there was also room for sobriety as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, delivered what has become the customary State of the Administration of Justice (SOTAJ) report.
The context of the Chief Justice’s SOTAJ report this year was defined by both expectation and transition. There is expectation of an inevitable deluge of election petitions and political disputes as the country hurtles towards the 2027 general elections. Concurrently, the courts must also adapt to what CJN Kekere-Ekun described as an inevitable “process of renewal” as senior judges retire and younger ones take their place in what she called “the most consequential of responsibilities” jointly exercised by the Judicial Service Commissions and the National Judicial Council (NJC).
This SOTAJ report was the penultimate by this Chief Justice on a judiciary in rapid transition. In the month preceding it, Ibrahim Mohammed Saulawa retired from the Supreme Court.
For at least three of the Justices, this was their last attendance at such ceremony. At the end of the first week of next month, Uwani Abba-Aji will retire. Four months thereafter, on 23 March 2027, Helen Ogunwumiju will follow. Stephen Adah will be next on 13 June 2027.
It is unlikely that any of these vacancies will be filled before the swearing in of the winners in next year’s elections. For guidance, 12 new Justices of Appeal recommended for appointment in the middle of May 2026 still await the consent of the president over five months after the NJC transmitted its recommendations to him. In the middle of the active season of dispute resolution following the elections in January and February 2027, therefore, the bench of the Supreme Court will be short by at least four Justices.
This set the stage for the meat of the report delivered by the Chief Justice. It outlined some innovation, contained evidence of some progress, and also acknowledged challenges with hopeful candour.
Case management emerged as a major site of attention for this Chief Justice. It is a field that could define her signature legacy. The numbers tell some of the story.
In the 2025-26 judicial year, the Supreme Court received 2,456 matters. These included 1,179 civil motions; 573 criminal motions; 13 Sharia-related motions; and 676 appeals. Of the last category (appeals), there were 433 civil appeals; 212 criminal appeals; 19 political cases; 12 Sharia appeals; and 10 originating motions.
The fact that this list omits any mention of death penalty cases is perhaps the best evidence of why the category of “political cases” remains both interesting and curious. That category first entered the lexicon of the SOTAJ under late Chief Justice Tanko Muhammad in 2021. In that year, two years ahead of the 2023 elections, it accounted for 33 or nearly five per cent of the 681 cases reported. Two years later, following the 2023 elections, political cases had become a mainstay of the docket of a Supreme Court that “heard 388 political appeals, 215 criminal appeals and 464 civil appeals.”
This year, political cases were a mere 2.8% of the cases heard, a fall of about 45% in comparison to five years ago. It is unlikely to remain so as the country heads into active election season. Progress in the reduction of political cases working their way up to the Supreme Court reflects the consequence of judicial doctrine that absolves courts from judicial oversight of internal management of political parties.
The demands on Nigeria’s Supreme Court, however, remain unsustainable. During the year, the court rendered 411 judgments in total. This is 16.73% relative to the total case intake for the year, a modest improvement on the 16.18% recorded in the previous year. This represents a crippling workload that worryingly sometimes reflects in the quality of judgments issued by the court.
By contrast, during the same period, the United Kingdom Supreme Court considered 295 applications for Permission to Appeal (PTA), and issued 56 judgments. In its capacity as the highest court of the dominions in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the court received another 58 cases and issued 54 judgments.
Across the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a mere 74 cases. Of these, it took oral arguments in 58 and delivered 67 judgments.
These numbers explain some of the innovations in managing judicial throughput reported by the CJN. For instance, the court began the implementation of the Nigerian Case Management System (NCMS), an electronic platform which will eventually be rolled out to cover all superior courts of record across Nigeria. It also now houses a Mediation Centre to encourage alternative dispute resolution where possible.
According to the CJN, 125 matters which were already concluded were discovered to be still in the court’s active pool and removed. Another 178 “moribund matters”, she reported, were “disposed of in chambers.” She did not elaborate on the criteria that would render a case moribund. She may wish to clarify this in her next report as it could hold the key to understanding the possibility for expanding the scope of matters that can be disposed of in chambers.
Additionally, the report disclosed that the court has established expedited panels for cases involving the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC); Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON); Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS); Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC); and Sharia. 141 cases fell into this category, including 52 EFCC cases; 43 Sharia; 21 AMCON; 17 LPDC; and 10 NRS cases.
Five other issues flagged by the CJN in her SOTAJ report are important.
First is the withholding by the executive of funds budgeted for the judiciary, especially at the state level. This makes a mockery of judicial financial autonomy. In Edo State, a new law assented to by the governor in August 2026 turns back the clock on financial autonomy of the judiciary.
Second is the “continuing need to safeguard the integrity of judicial appointments, particularly at the State level.” She can count on public support in implementing her insistence on “merit, competence, integrity and experience” in judicial appointments.
Third is the establishment of an Election Petition Proceedings Centre with a dedicated litigation registry at the Supreme Court. This is welcome and the CJN deserves credit for it.
Fourth is judicial wellbeing. In this connection, it is notable that during the past year, the Supreme Court upgraded attention to “healthcare and other essential support services… intended to provide the institutional conditions necessary for judicial officers and staff to discharge their responsibilities effectively.”
Fifth, in a year in which women established themselves at the highest levels of Nigeria’s legal profession, it was fitting for the CJN to acknowledge the continuing need for equality of opportunities in order to ensure a country “in which talent is recognised, merit is rewarded and no young lawyer is discouraged from aspiring to leadership because of gender, background or circumstance.”
These then frame the underlying challenges as this Chief Justice searches for legacy in the 19 months before the curtain falls on her tenure in May 2028. Her next report in 2027 will be the last of her tenure. By then she would hopefully have led the judiciary through the headwinds of the 2027 election season.
Curiously this time, the CJN’s report was inexcusably silent on judicial discipline. The CJN is also the Chair of the NJC and reporting on one office without the other is incomplete.
Equally, the omission of death penalty cases from the categories to which her court accords priority says something not entirely complimentary about the priorities and philosophies that currently underpin the work of Nigeria’s judiciary. It suggests a system inclined to prioritise power over people and property over dignity. That is a foundational flaw that the leadership of the judiciary and the legal profession must address urgently.
•A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu