By George Bamidele O Ogunjimi Esq.
It is both unfortunate and deeply disturbing that certain individuals, including some who parade themselves as defenders of the rule of law, have resorted to personal attacks, disparaging remarks and unwarranted criticisms against Hon. Justice Peter Odo Lifu over his judgment concerning the African Democratic Congress (ADC), without first demonstrating that they have read, understood or critically examined the judgment in question.
How can anyone credibly condemn a judgment he has neither read nor understood? How can anyone pronounce a judge guilty of judicial misconduct merely because a decision does not align with his personal, political or ideological preferences?
The increasing tendency to substitute informed legal analysis with social media outrage is a dangerous development that deserves serious condemnation.
A judgment is not properly evaluated through headlines, political affiliations, speculative commentaries, social media narratives or the emotional reactions of interested parties. It must be examined against the pleadings, the issues submitted for determination, the evidence placed before the court, the applicable laws, judicial precedents and the reasoning adopted by the court in arriving at its conclusions.
Regrettably, many of those commenting so confidently on Justice Peter Odo Lifu’s judgment have not demonstrated even a basic understanding of the proceedings that culminated in the decision.
How many of these commentators know the nature of the originating process through which the action was commenced? How many understand the precise questions submitted for determination? How many can identify the parties to the suit, the reliefs sought, the nature of the evidence presented, whether oral, documentary or affidavit evidence, and the manner in which the court evaluated and resolved the issues before it?
These are not insignificant technicalities. They are fundamental elements of legal proceedings. One cannot intelligently assess a judicial decision without understanding the facts, the issues and the applicable law upon which that decision rests.
It is particularly disappointing that some individuals who occupy prominent positions in public discourse have chosen to pronounce on matters of serious legal consequence without first undertaking the elementary responsibility of examining the judgment itself.
We must be concerned about the public commentaries attributed to Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu. With due respect to his academic standing and contributions to public discourse, legal criticism must be distinguished from political commentary, speculation and social media activism. Academic credentials, however distinguished, do not exempt anyone from the obligation to engage with the actual record of proceedings and the reasoning contained in a judgment.
A person may disagree with a judge. A person may consider a judgment legally erroneous. A person may identify inconsistencies, misapplication of statutory provisions or departures from established judicial precedents. Indeed, robust and intellectually honest criticism of judicial decisions is an essential feature of a constitutional democracy.
But such criticism must be supported by law, facts and reasoned argument. It must not degenerate into personal attacks, intimidation, insults or attempts to ridicule judicial officers.
The proper question is not whether a judgment pleases us, but whether it is legally sustainable.
This is not in any sense holding brief for Hon. Justice Peter Odo Lifu, neither suggesting that judicial officers should be insulated from legitimate criticism. No judge is infallible. Judges are human beings, and their decisions remain subject to the appellate process and the disciplinary jurisdiction established by law.
However, there is a fundamental distinction between criticising a judgment and attacking the person of the judge who delivered it. That distinction must never be lost in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.
The public must not be made to faith that journalists and broadcasters have an important responsibility to inform the public accurately, fairly and responsibly, particularly when discussing sensitive judicial proceedings. The pursuit of ratings, sensational headlines and audience engagement must never take precedence over accuracy, fairness and professional ethics. This is where Arise Television and its crew are daily falling short of their professional standards.””
The media must not become a platform for trial by public opinion, particularly where the issues in controversy require careful legal examination.
THE JUDICIARY MUST NOT BE SUBJECTED TO INTIMIDATION
Judges must be encouraged to continue to uphold the independence, integrity and dignity of the Nigerian Judiciary.
Judicial independence is not a privilege granted to judges for their personal comfort. It is a constitutional safeguard designed to protect the administration of justice and ensure that judicial officers can discharge their responsibilities without fear, favour, intimidation or external pressure.
If judges are to decide cases according to the Constitution, the law and the evidence before them, they must not be made to feel that every decision which displeases powerful political interests will attract personal attacks, public intimidation or orchestrated campaigns of vilification.
The experiences surrounding the presidential election petitions, including the public controversies involving the justices of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, should remind us of the importance of protecting judicial officers from improper pressure while preserving the right of citizens to scrutinise judicial decisions.
We must be equally concerned about the conduct of some members of the legal profession who, rather than demonstrate professional restraint and respect for the institution they belong to, participate in public exchanges that risk undermining confidence in the administration of justice.
The Nigerian Bar Association must continue to remind its members that the privileges and responsibilities of legal practice come with professional obligations. Lawyers are entitled to disagree with judgments, but such disagreements must be expressed within the boundaries of professional conduct, civility and respect for the administration of justice.
Being a lawyer does not confer a licence to insult judges. Equally, being a professor of law, political commentator, journalist or public figure does not confer immunity from the obligation to be accurate, fair and responsible.
THE RULE OF LAW PROVIDES THE PROPER REMEDY.
A litigant who believes that a court has reached an erroneous conclusion has the right, subject to the applicable procedural and constitutional requirements, to pursue an appeal before a competent appellate court.
Where a judicial officer is alleged to have engaged in misconduct, a formal complaint may be submitted to the appropriate disciplinary authority, including the National Judicial Council, in accordance with its established procedures.
These are recognised institutional mechanisms for seeking redress.
What is certainly unacceptable is the attempt to replace these established procedures with insults, personal attacks, intimidation, unsubstantiated allegations and public campaigns designed to ridicule judicial officers.
The rule of law cannot be selectively invoked. We cannot demand obedience to court decisions when they favour our preferred political interests and simultaneously resort to personal attacks when they do not.
A society cannot claim to respect the rule of law while encouraging the intimidation of those entrusted with interpreting and applying it.
LET THE JUDGMENT BE JUDGED ON ITS MERITS
For the avoidance of doubt, nobody is asking Nigerians to accept Justice Peter Odo Lifu’s judgment unquestioningly. Nobody is arguing that judges should be above criticism. Nobody is suggesting that judicial errors should be ignored.
What is being demanded is simple: let those criticising the judgment first read it, understand it and engage with its legal reasoning.
If there are errors, identify them. If the law was misapplied, demonstrate how. If the evidence was wrongly evaluated, explain the error. If the court exceeded its jurisdiction, establish the legal basis for that contention.
That is how serious legal discourse is conducted.
We must resist the dangerous culture in which every judicial decision is immediately subjected to political interpretation, social media condemnation and personal attacks before the actual judgment has even been properly examined.
The Judiciary is not perfect, but it remains one of the indispensable institutions of our constitutional democracy. Its independence must be protected, its decisions must be scrutinised, and its officers must be held accountable through lawful and established procedures.
Let us therefore separate legal criticism from political hostility, intellectual engagement from social media sensationalism, and legitimate accountability from intimidation.
You may disagree with a judgment. You may challenge it. You may appeal against it. You may even demonstrate, through sound legal arguments, that it is wrong. But you must not confuse disagreement with a licence to intimidate or vilify the judge.
Before condemning Justice Peter Odo Lifu, READ THE JUDGMENT.
Before accusing a judge of wrongdoing, ESTABLISH THE FACTS.
Before claiming to defend the rule of law, DEMONSTRATE RESPECT FOR THE INSTITUTIONS AND PROCEDURES THAT SUSTAIN IT.
The rule of law must prevail over political sentiments, personal preferences and social media theatrics.
JUDGES MUST NOT BE ABOVE THE LAW, BUT NEITHER MUST THEY BE SUBJECTED TO INTIMIDATION FOR DOING THEIR JOBS.
George Ogunjimi Esq
jurisrepubliclegal@gmail.com
09/11/2026.
