Wiked Judges and Nyesomized Courts: A Critical Look at Judiciary-Executive Relations. By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Nigeria mandates that judges maintain impartiality, explicitly advising against close associations with frequent litigants like government officials. This rule, intended to uphold judicial integrity, appears to be challenged by the cozy ties seen in Nigeria’s judicial system today.

Sylvanus Nsofor’s Influence on Wike’s Political Rise

In 1999, Sylvanus Nsofor, then a Justice of the Court of Appeal, made waves when he overturned an electoral decision, paving the way for Nyesom Wike’s ascent as Chairman of the Obio/Akpor Local Government Area in Rivers State. This pivotal decision marked the beginning of what many view as Wike’s complex and enduring relationship with Nigeria’s judiciary.

Nsofor’s judgment reconfigured local politics, enabling Wike to rise through political ranks and forge significant connections within the judicial system. This relationship would later benefit Wike in his political journey, culminating in his becoming Rivers State Governor in 2015 and later Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in 2023.

Wike’s Financial Generosity to the Judiciary

Wike’s administration in Rivers State was characterized by unprecedented gifts to the judiciary. In 2020, he donated 24 luxury duplexes to judges in the state and offered substantial cash incentives to those wishing to build homes independently. Previously, he had gifted over 40 SUVs to judicial officials and funded the construction of judicial quarters on a site reclaimed from Bayelsa State. This largesse extended beyond state boundaries, with former Court of Appeal President Zainab Bulkachuwa reportedly awarded contracts linked to the judiciary in Port Harcourt. Critics argue this pattern of patronage blurs the lines between executive influence and judicial independence.

Supreme Court Intervention and Wike’s Return as Governor

Following the 2015 election, Wike faced opposition from the APC candidate, Dakuku Peterside, who challenged his victory. While lower courts ruled against Wike, the Supreme Court, under Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, reversed these rulings in 2016 on technical grounds, allowing Wike to retain the governorship. This verdict, viewed by some as controversial, underscored a perception that the judiciary had become overly accommodating to certain political figures.

Federal-Level Judicial Influence

As FCT Minister, Wike’s influence has only expanded. Recently, he announced a project to construct 40 judicial housing units in Abuja, underscoring his continuing commitment to providing housing and amenities for judges. This act of generosity was publicly praised by Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest as judicial leaders stood beside the Minister at the project launch.

A Long History of Judicial Subservience

Odinkalu notes that historically, Nigeria’s judiciary has been resilient in preserving its autonomy despite various forms of political pressure. However, under the current administration, some worry that this tradition may be eroding. Figures like Jerome Udoji, who served as Nigeria’s first indigenous District Officer, exemplified an era of judicial integrity that resisted undue political influence. Yet today, critics argue that high-profile figures like Wike have effectively institutionalized a culture of executive influence over judicial matters.

In sum, the close and public relationship between certain judicial figures and government officials like Wike raises fundamental questions about judicial independence in Nigeria. As high-ranking judges openly commend a benefactor who remains politically active and frequently involved in litigation, critics fear that these connections may compromise the judiciary’s ability to administer justice impartially. The public can only wonder if Nigeria’s judiciary has been “Nyesomized”—subject to a new norm where powerful executives openly influence the judicial sphere, challenging the very principle of justice that judges are sworn to uphold.