National Judicial Institute (NJI) has clarified that conflicting judgments or orders issued by courts of equal standing should not be interpreted as a collapse of the judicial system.
NJI Administrator, Justice Babatunde Adejumo, made the remark on Thursday in Abuja during a media briefing ahead of the 2025 All Nigerian Judges’ Conference.
Responding to questions about the recent contradictory court directives from Abuja and Ibadan relating to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) national convention, Adejumo said such situations are a normal feature of any functioning judiciary and often help shape and refine legal principles.
He explained that variations in rulings stem from how different judges interpret the facts, evidence and legal issues presented before them. According to him, each case has its own peculiarities, and judges apply the law based on what is proven before the court.
“Judges give judgments based on the facts presented before them and the evidence proved. Even in the United States, which has one of the oldest and most sophisticated judicial systems, state’s courts often give different opinions on similar issues,” he said.
Adejumo, a former President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), noted that such divergences are naturally resolved through the country’s established judicial hierarchy—from the High Courts to the Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court.
“If two or three courts give conflicting decisions on the same subject matter, the appellate courts exist to resolve them. Whatever the Supreme Court decides becomes final and binding,” he stated.
However, he stressed that while courts of equal jurisdiction are not bound by one another’s decisions, no lower court is permitted to contradict a ruling from a superior court. Doing so, he warned, amounts to “judicial rascality.”
“Once the Supreme Court has spoken, no division of the Court of Appeal or lower court should issue a contrary decision, except for clarifying ambiguities in interpretation,” he added.
Adejumo called for procedural reforms to reduce incidents of conflicting orders, including requiring litigants to file an affidavit confirming that a matter is not already pending in another court. If found otherwise, he said, it should be treated as perjury.
Reflecting on his three decades on the bench, Adejumo recounted the growth of the NICN. “When I assumed office in 2003, the National Industrial Court had only two divisions in Lagos and Abuja, and just 123 staff members,” he said. He recalled how persistent advocacy eventually led to the passage of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, and the constitutional amendment that elevated the court to a superior court of record—with support from the National Assembly and 33 state assemblies.
The amendment placed the NICN as the fourth highest court in Nigeria and secured full membership for its president in the National Judicial Council and the Federal Judicial Service Commission.
Describing the NJI as “the heartbeat of the Nigerian Judiciary,” he said the institute serves as a bridge between judges, the public, legal stakeholders and the media, with the goal of improving judicial performance. He reaffirmed his commitment to strengthening judicial education through the institute.
Adejumo also addressed misconceptions surrounding judicial practice, stressing that judges do not undertake “voyages of discovery” to secure convictions. “A judge does not manufacture evidence. In criminal cases, guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Any element of doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused,” he explained.
He reiterated that judgments are grounded in facts, evidence, witness testimony, the law and precedent. “It is better for one hundred guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted,” he added.
The NJI administrator expressed confidence that the forthcoming 2025 All Nigerian Judges’ Conference will further elevate judicial standards and bolster public trust in the justice system.
