By EricJames Ochigbo

A university don, Prof. Paul Angya, has recommended the establishment of Judicial Precedent Monitoring and Harmonisation Unit (JPMHU) among other judicial reforms to address divergent court decisions in the country.

Angya, of Birmingham University, Karu, Nasarawa State, made the recommendation at a one-day dialogue on judicial reforms on Tuesday in Abuja.

The dialogue was titled, “One Judgment, Many Meanings: Navigating the Divergent Interpretation of Court Decisions in Nigeria.”

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the dialogue was organised by the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS).

In a paper titled “The Effect of Divergent Interpretations of the Decisions of Courts on Legal Certainty and the Rule of Law in Nigeria,” Angya called for strict enforcement of hierarchy, legislative clarity and drafting precision among others.

He said that the cumulative effect of such judicial dissonance is a breakdown of legal certainty, saying that predictability is the cornerstone of the Rule of Law.

The don said that it leads to forum shopping by litigants in pursuit of favourable interpretations and delays in justice delivery due to conflicting precedents.

 Angya said that it also leads to confusion among law enforcement agencies on which decision to apply and loss of public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to uphold justice consistently.

The don said that there was an urgent need for Nigerian courts, especially at the intermediate and lower levels, to fully comply with the doctrine of stare decisis.

Citing the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Osakuev verses Federal College of Education Asaba, he said that the doctrine of stare decisis remains a cornerstone of our judicial system.

“It is not for a lower court to question or depart from the clear and binding authority of the Supreme Court. Judicial training and internal disciplinary mechanisms must be reinforced to ensure compliance.

“JPMHU should be established under the aegis of the National Judicial Council (NJC) or in collaboration with the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS).

“Its primary functions would include, tracking, collating, and reviewing judicial pronouncements across all tiers.

“Publishing thematic bulletins on doctrinal developments, recommending matters for resolution by higher benches in cases of doctrinal conflict and advising the Chief Justice of Nigeria on jurisprudential trends that require clarification,” he said.

In his remarks, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Ejembi Eko, emphasised the need for discipline in the judiciary.

He blamed the issue of divergence in judicial pronouncements on indiscipline, political interference and work pressure given the limited time to decide electoral matters.

According to him, when we do these, we compromise the principles of rule of law and democracy.

Eko tasked the NJC on high disciplinary standard for judicial officers, saying that a judge that was indicted for misconduct should be made to resign.

On his part, the President of Industrial Court, Justice Benedict Kanyip said that there were hardly two cases with the same parameters.

The justice explained that a matter could have been determined by a court without considering some factors which in the interest of justice, were considered by another court, hence making two different decisions on similar matters.

He said that cases should be decided based on their individual merits, saying that injustice is such an expensive price to incur on the altar of precedence.

Earlier, the Director-General of NILDS, Prof. Abubakar Sulaiman, said that the theme of the discussion was at the very heart of legal reasoning and judicial integrity.

According to him, in every legal system governed by precedence, consistency in judicial interpretation is an indispensable factor in guaranteeing judicial integrity and public trust in the judiciary as the last hope of the common man.

“Conversely, the reality we often encounter is that the same judgment can yield multiple understandings among legal scholars and even within different tiers of the judiciary.

“This phenomenon of divergence is not merely academic; it affects the predictability of law, the rights of litigants and the authority of the courts.

“Today, we aim to explore the causes, consequences and potential resolutions of such divergent interpretations,” he said.

Sulaiman pledged that the outcome of the dialogue will be submitted to the National Assembly for necessary legislations and policy actions. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Francis Onyeukwu