The concern of Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, about willful disobedience of court judgments, or the slow machinery of justice, is well founded. The government’s and citizens’ failure to obey court judgments and orders remains a manifestation of Nigeria’s damaging institutional weakness. It undermines the rule of law, erodes public confidence in the judiciary, threatens citizens’ rights and weakens the foundations of economic development.
As Prof. Soyinka rightly observed at the Nigerian Ombudsman yearly conference 2026 in Abuja, some citizens die without benefiting from judgments delivered in their favour. This is a damning indictment of a system in which obtaining justice in court does not necessarily translate into receiving justice in practice, despite the horrendous time it takes to obtain such judgments. No meaningful claim to constitutional democracy can stand when court decisions are treated as optional, particularly by those entrusted with governing the country.
The government, its agencies and public institutions ought to be the foremost defenders of judicial authority, not violators of court decisions whenever such judgments become inconvenient. Indeed, if any institution should be beyond reproach in its compliance with court orders, it is the government itself. Unfortunately, the persistent disregard for judicial pronouncements has become a troubling feature of public administration in Nigeria.
Soyinka cited instances in which litigants waited for years for the return of their passports despite court orders directing that the documents be released. Such cases illustrate the absurdity of a system in which citizens expend scarce resources pursuing justice, secure favourable judgments and are subsequently compelled to embark on another struggle to enforce them. For some, the wait is so prolonged that death comes before the relief granted by the court.
This situation mocks the judicial process. A judgment that cannot be enforced is, for all practical purposes, a denial of justice. It also sends a dangerous message that the powerful can disregard the law without consequences, while ordinary citizens are expected to submit to its demands. Such double standards cannot sustain public confidence in democratic institutions.
The consequences extend beyond the courtroom. Disobedience to court orders is anti-development and poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s development aspirations. At a time when the Federal Government is seeking foreign direct investment, it must recognise that investors assess not merely the size of a market, the availability of natural resources or the promise of financial returns, but also the reliability of the institutions that protect their investments.
No serious investor would willingly commit substantial capital to a country where the government itself disregards judicial decisions when they go against it. Investors require assurances that contractual rights will be protected, property disputes will be resolved through established legal processes and court judgments will be respected regardless of the identity or influence of the parties involved. Where these guarantees are uncertain, investment risks increase, the cost of doing business rises and capital is likely to move to jurisdictions with more dependable legal systems.
Nigeria cannot simultaneously promote itself as an attractive investment destination and tolerate institutional conduct that weakens confidence in the rule of law. Government agencies that ignore judgments risk discouraging both domestic and foreign investors, undermining employment opportunities, constraining economic growth and frustrating the country’s broader development objectives. Respect for court orders is, therefore, not merely a legal obligation; it is an economic imperative.
At the Ombudsman event, the Emir of Lafia and former Supreme Court Justice, Sidi Bage Muhammad, made an important point when he argued that compliance with court orders must begin with political leaders. Citizens cannot reasonably be expected to respect judicial decisions if those in authority demonstrate contempt for them. Leadership by example is indispensable to building a society in which the law commands universal respect.
The concerns raised at the conference also highlight the importance of strengthening the Public Complaints Commission (PCC). As an accessible and relatively inexpensive avenue for citizens to seek redress against administrative injustice, the Ombudsman has a potentially significant role in addressing complaints involving public institutions, unpaid pensions and gratuities, and inadequate public services. However, its effectiveness will depend on its ability to secure meaningful corrective action rather than merely receive and process complaints.
The PCC should establish effective mechanisms for tracking recurring grievances, monitoring responses from ministries, departments and agencies, and identifying officials responsible for persistent administrative failure. Its recommendations must not be allowed to languish in official files. Where its statutory powers are insufficient to secure compliance, the Federal Government and the National Assembly should examine the legal and institutional reforms required to strengthen its effectiveness.
Nevertheless, the commission cannot substitute for the courts or become an excuse for government agencies to disregard binding judicial decisions. The primary responsibility for compliance rests with the parties against whom orders are made. Government institutions must develop clear internal procedures to ensure that judgments are promptly reviewed, communicated to the appropriate officials and implemented within the applicable legal framework.
Equally important is the need to address concerns over the misuse of ex parte orders and interim reliefs. As the Federal Ministry of Justice and ActionAid Nigeria recently warned, improper applications and grants of such orders can undermine fair hearing, disrupt business activities and weaken confidence in the judiciary. Lawyers must make full and frank disclosure of material facts, while judges must rigorously apply the relevant procedural rules. The urgency of an application cannot justify an abuse of judicial discretion or the denial of fundamental rights.
These concerns are not contradictory. Nigeria needs a judiciary whose orders are respected and a judicial process whose procedures are applied fairly and responsibly. Accountability must operate in both directions: litigants must not abuse court processes, and public institutions must not frustrate lawful judgments.
Ultimately, the Federal Government must demonstrate through concrete action that no agency or official is above the law. Persistent disobedience should attract appropriate consequences, while compliance should be monitored transparently. Digital systems could help track complaints and administrative recommendations, but technology will be useful only where institutions possess the will to act on the information available to them.
The measure of justice is not simply the number of judgments delivered, but the extent to which those judgments secure the rights and remedies they promise. Nigeria’s democracy, economy and international reputation will remain vulnerable if court orders continue to be treated as suggestions rather than binding legal obligations.
The government must lead by example, because a state that refuses to obey its own courts cannot credibly demand that its citizens respect the law, nor can it convincingly invite investors to trust institutions whose authority it undermines through its own conduct.
END
Be the first to comment