By Dr. Monday O. Ubani (SAN)
In recent times, a disturbing and dangerous trend has emerged within the Nigerian legal and political landscape. It is the deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of final court judgements, particularly those of the Supreme Court, by parties to suits. Rather than submitting to the authority and finality of these decisions, parties now cherry-pick aspects of the judgements that suit their personal or political interests, often spinning misleading narratives that cause confusion, tension, and disorder within the polity.
This trend has played out brazenly in several recent cases, the most notable being:
1. The case of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly, where parties to the dispute have offered conflicting interpretations of the Supreme Court’s ruling, particularly in relation to the status and validity of the Assembly’s actions post-defection, as well as the Governor’s compliance with purported agreements.
 2. The PDP leadership tussle involving Mr. Samuel Anyanwu and Mr. Sunday Udeh- Okoye, in which the Supreme Court’s pronouncement was supposed to end the internal wrangling. Yet, both sides claimed victory, creating further ambiguity and exacerbating the conflict within the party.
3. The Labour Party’s leadership crisis, especially concerning the legitimacy and tenure of the party chairman. Despite a clear judicial pronouncement, the contending factions have continued to hold opposing positions, undermining the authority of the court’s decision.
In all these matters, the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of justice in Nigeria, has made pronouncements that ought to bring finality to the disputes. Yet, parties have manipulated these judgements to suit their selfish agendas, leading to public confusion and a deepening of the very conflicts the court sought to resolve.
This development is dangerous for several compelling reasons:
1. It undermines the finality of the Supreme Court. If judgements of the apex court are subject to multiple interpretations by parties, it threatens the very foundation of our judicial system. The authority and integrity of the judiciary are eroded when parties treat final court decisions as mere opinions rather than binding mandates.
 2. It perpetuates endless litigation and conflict. If there is no common understanding and acceptance of a final judgement, then there can be no end to disputes. The essence of judicial resolution is defeated when parties act contrary to the spirit and letter of a ruling.
 3. It erodes public confidence in the judicial process. When the public sees that court decisions do not bring resolution or certainty, they may begin to question the relevance of the courts. This undermines the rule of law and fosters a culture of lawlessness and disrespect for judicial authority.
To arrest this growing menace, I propose the following urgent measures:
1. The Supreme Court must make its judgements more explicit and unambiguous. Where necessary, the court should provide clear consequential orders to eliminate room for manipulation and mischief by litigants or their legal representatives.
2. Legal practitioners must uphold the highest standards of professional ethics. Lawyers should advise their clients honestly and responsibly, even if the court’s decision is unfavourable. It is unprofessional and dangerous for lawyers to become merchants of confusion by spinning judgements to favour their clients’ desires rather than the truth.
3. Contempt proceedings must be actively pursued against defaulters. Parties who willfully misinterpret or defy court judgements must be held accountable. The courts should not hesitate to invoke their contempt powers to punish such conduct, which seeks to bring the judiciary into disrepute.
My conclusion is that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man. If the sanctity of its decisions is not preserved and enforced, the very fabric of our democratic governance will be at risk. All stakeholders – lawyers, litigants, political actors, and the media must play their part in respecting and upholding the finality and authority of the Supreme Court. This is the only way to ensure peace, order, and the continued relevance of the judicial institution in our democratic experiment.
Ubani, a human rights lawyer writes from Lagos
