By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu
In the annals of Nigeria’s judicial history, few Chief Justices have left as profound a legacy as Sir John Verity. A man of foresight and conviction, he stood against the political balkanization of the judiciary at a time when Nigeria was transitioning into a federation. His warnings—about the dangers of judicial decentralization turning courts into tools of political manipulation—have echoed through the decades, culminating in the present crisis of the Supreme Court. Now, with a new proposal to divide the apex court into regional divisions, Nigeria risks turning its Supreme Court into a fragmented commune of judicial Bantustans.
The Unheeded Prophecy of Sir John Verity
When Sir John assumed office in 1945, Nigeria was still under colonial rule, with a unitary judicial structure. The 1943 Native Courts Ordinance had established a “Supreme Court of Justice” for the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria, mirroring systems found in other British territories. However, by 1951, the winds of federalism had begun to reshape the country’s governance.
At the 1953 constitutional conference in London, nationalist politicians pushed for the regionalization of the judiciary. Sir John, with striking prescience, opposed this move, cautioning that it would make judges beholden to political interests and erode judicial independence. His objections were overruled, and in 1954, Nigeria’s judiciary was regionalized. Seeing the writing on the wall, Sir John opted for early retirement, departing as the penultimate Englishman to serve as Chief Justice of Nigeria.
The consequences of that decision were not immediately apparent, but by 1963, Nigeria’s new ruling elite sought complete control of the courts. The Privy Council—once the final arbiter of Nigeria’s legal disputes—had ruled against the government in a landmark case involving Premier Ladoke Akintola. In retaliation, the ruling Northern People’s Congress (NPC) abolished the Privy Council’s jurisdiction and restructured the Supreme Court into the nation’s final appellate body. Sir John’s warnings had come to pass: the judiciary was now vulnerable to executive interference.
The Supreme Court’s Decline into Political Arbitration
For decades, the Supreme Court operated with relative stability, handling appeals on points of law and serving as the ultimate guardian of justice. However, since the return of democracy in 1999, the court has become increasingly entangled in political and electoral disputes. This shift has had two dire consequences:
1. Eroding Judicial Credibility – The court’s preoccupation with high-stakes political cases has led to accusations of bias, corruption, and political interference.
2. Unmanageable Case Backlog – With the court prioritizing election-related cases, non-political appeals languish for years, often never reaching judgment.
This dysfunction has prompted calls for reform, culminating in a new legislative proposal that, rather than addressing the root issues, threatens to exacerbate them.
The Misguided Proposal to Fragment the Supreme Court
On December 9, 2024—World Anti-Corruption Day—Hon. Manu Soro, a member of the House of Representatives, introduced a bill proposing the creation of five regional divisions of the Supreme Court. These would be located in:
Umuahia (South-East)
Bauchi (North-East)
Uyo (South-South)
Lagos (South-West)
Kano (North-West)
Abuja (Headquarters)
The bill’s stated objective is to enhance access to justice, reduce logistical costs, and expedite case resolution. However, in reality, it fundamentally misunderstands the role of the Supreme Court and misdiagnoses its ailments.
Why This Bill is a Judicial Disaster Waiting to Happen
While the idea of decentralizing the Supreme Court might seem appealing at first glance, it is a deeply flawed proposition for several reasons:
1. Undermining the Court’s Authority – A “Supreme Court” that operates in multiple divisions ceases to be truly supreme. Fragmentation will weaken its role as the final arbiter of justice.
2. Failing to Address the Root Problems – The backlog of cases is not due to geography but to the sheer volume of appeals. The solution lies in restricting access to the Supreme Court, not multiplying its locations.
3. Inviting Political Manipulation – Regional courts are more susceptible to local political pressures, further eroding judicial independence.
Rather than carving the Supreme Court into regional enclaves, Nigeria must pursue real reforms. These include:
Restricting Access – Limiting cases that reach the Supreme Court to those of significant constitutional or national importance.
Professionalizing Case Management – Implementing modern judicial administration practices to streamline appeals.
Strengthening Lower Courts – Empowering appellate courts to handle more complex cases, reducing the burden on the Supreme Court.
A Call for Real Reform, Not Judicial Balkanization
Nigeria’s Supreme Court stands at a crossroads. It can either succumb to political pressures and allow itself to be dissected into judicial Bantustans, or it can reclaim its rightful place as a beacon of legal authority. The misguided proposal before the National Assembly is a step in the wrong direction—one that will only deepen the judiciary’s woes.
The solution lies not in geography, but in governance. Nigeria must rethink its approach to judicial reform before the Supreme Court loses what little remains of its credibility. If we fail to act wisely, we may wake up to find that the highest court in the land has been reduced to nothing more than a collection of politically compromised regional tribunals—Sir John Verity’s worst nightmare realized.
About the Author
Chidi Anselm Odinkalu is a lawyer, academic, and human rights advocate. He can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu.
PIONEER NEWS 