Olu Allen
On Tuesday, the Federal High Court in Lokoja did something that has left many lawyers and constitutional observers deeply unsettled: it set aside its own substantive judgment delivered six months earlier, reversing a legal victory previously granted to the NDC and restoring the parties to their pre-judgment positions.
The court justified its decision on the ground that a party whose rights were affected had not been joined in the original suit.
Whether that reason is sufficient to permit a trial court to revisit its own final judgment is now the constitutional question.
That question goes far beyond the fortunes of one political party.
It strikes at one of the judiciary’s most cherished principles: functus officio—the doctrine that once a court has delivered its final judgment, its authority over the substantive issues in that case ordinarily comes to an end, save for recognised exceptions such as correcting clerical mistakes or where the law permits otherwise.
This is not a technical quarrel among lawyers. It goes to the heart of legal certainty. If trial courts can revisit their own final judgments beyond those recognised limits, the distinction between trial and appellate jurisdiction begins to blur.
The Anatomy of a Judicial Somersault
Nigeria’s judicial hierarchy is deliberately structured. Trial courts determine disputes. Appellate courts review alleged errors.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the doctrine of finality in decisions such as Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya, while also recognising limited exceptions where a judgment may be treated as a nullity.
The Lokoja decision now raises a difficult constitutional question: did the circumstances genuinely fall within those recognised exceptions, or did the court exceed its jurisdiction?
That is precisely the issue the appellate courts should resolve.
Until then, the judgment is likely to remain one of the most controversial judicial decisions of recent years.
If appellate courts ultimately conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revisit its own judgment, the implications would extend far beyond this case.
It would raise uncomfortable questions about the certainty of judicial decisions and public confidence in the administration of justice.
Tinubu’s Presidency and Public Perception
Some have already concluded that this forms part of a broader effort to legitimise the ruling establishment through judicial means.
There is no public evidence proving such coordination, and responsible analysis demands that distinction.
What cannot be ignored, however, is public perception.
Since the 2023 elections, a growing number of politically sensitive judicial decisions have fuelled public suspicion that the courts increasingly favour those in power. Whether that perception is fair or not, it is becoming politically significant.
The Lokoja ruling is likely to deepen that perception because, once again, the practical beneficiary is the ruling establishment.
The Tinubu administration did not create every institutional weakness within Nigeria’s justice system.
But it governs during this period. That places upon it a responsibility to defend—not merely proclaim—the independence of the judiciary.
Silence in moments like this may not prove complicity, but it risks reinforcing public suspicion that controversial judicial outcomes attracting political benefits require no explanation.
Implications for Nigerian Democracy
First, the principle of finality comes under pressure. Citizens obey court judgments because they believe litigation must eventually end.
If final judgments become vulnerable to repeated reopening, confidence in the judicial process inevitably suffers.
Second, investor confidence depends not only on economic policy but also on predictable legal institutions.
Businesses invest where contracts and judicial decisions carry certainty.
Third, democratic participation suffers when citizens begin to doubt that elections—or even court judgments—provide final answers to political disputes.
Strategic Advice for the Opposition
The opposition should resist emotional reactions.
Its strongest response is legal.
The appellate courts should now determine whether the Lokoja court properly exercised jurisdiction in setting aside its earlier judgment.
At the same time, opposition parties should educate Nigerians on why judicial independence matters irrespective of party affiliation.
This should not be presented as an APC-versus-opposition dispute. It is a constitutional question affecting every Nigerian.
A coordinated legal strategy would serve them better than fragmented political outrage.
Advice for the Presidency
President Tinubu has an opportunity that few presidents receive.
He can strengthen democratic confidence by allowing the appellate courts to determine this matter free from any perception of political interference.
A judiciary trusted by both winners and losers ultimately strengthens every administration—including his own.
Short-term political victories secured at the expense of institutional credibility rarely produce long-term political stability.
Final Verdict
Nigeria’s democracy is not yet beyond rescue.
But democracy survives only where citizens believe that courts speak with authority, consistency and finality.
The Lokoja decision has opened a constitutional debate that deserves urgent appellate clarification.
History will ultimately judge not merely who won this case, but whether our institutions remained faithful to the principles that give democracy its legitimacy.
Allen writes on public affairs and advocates for good governance.
