IJAP Raises Alarm Over Abuse Of Ex-Parte Orders, Seeks Tougher Sanctions For Judges

…ActionAid backs judicial accountability drive, says misuse of interim relief threatens access to justice and public confidence

By Bukar BOLORI

The Independent Judicial Accountability Panel (IJAP) has called for stronger disciplinary measures against judicial officers who abuse ex-parte orders, warning that their improper use threatens fair hearing, public confidence in the judiciary and the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system.

The panel urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to take a more proactive approach to disciplining judges who improperly issue such orders and recommended that judicial officers known to misuse ex-parte orders, or with pending disciplinary complaints, should not be appointed to election petition tribunals.

Meanwhile, ActionAid Nigeria has backed the reform initiative, stressing that a credible, accessible and accountable justice system is essential to protecting citizens’ rights, particularly those of poor and marginalised communities.

The positions were highlighted in discussions surrounding a specialised seminar on judicial officers’ application of the rules of court, organised by the Federal Ministry of Justice under the theme, “Strengthening Procedural Practice and Effective Interim Relief”.

In a goodwill message delivered at the seminar, ActionAid Nigeria’s Governance Specialist, Mrs Vivian Efem Bassey, said justice must be treated as a right available to every citizen rather than a privilege reserved for a few.

She said the organisation’s engagement with communities, particularly women, young people and people living in poverty and exclusion, had reinforced the importance of a justice system that protects human dignity, equality and sustainable development.

“Where courts are fair, transparent, and accountable, citizens are protected; where they are not, the burden falls most heavily on the poor and the marginalised,” Bassey said.

She described the seminar as an important opportunity for judicial officers, legal practitioners and other justice sector stakeholders to strengthen procedural practice and promote public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bassey said ActionAid Nigeria was proud to support the work of the Federal Judicial Sector Reform Coordinating Committee (FJSRCC) and IJAP, noting that the two bodies, despite their distinct mandates, shared a commitment to advancing justice and accountability in Nigeria.

While the FJSRCC coordinates reform efforts across the justice sector, IJAP comprises retired Court of Appeal justices, academics, media executives, civil society representatives and legal practitioners who review judicial pronouncements, public-interest litigation and legal frameworks to develop recommendations for improving judicial processes.

According to her, their work reflects a common objective of building a justice system that is transparent, credible and responsive to the needs of Nigerians.

The specialised seminar follows growing concerns about the request, processing and grant of ex-parte orders and interim reliefs in Nigeria’s judicial system.

The issue featured prominently at the 2025 National Network Conference of Justice Sector Actors and in IJAP’s deliberations on judicial accountability.

The panel’s recommendations included a call for the NJC to strengthen disciplinary action against judges who misuse ex-parte orders, particularly given the potential consequences for parties who may be affected by court decisions made without first being heard.

However, Bassey cautioned against treating the engagement as an exercise in fault-finding, saying the problem was not necessarily the absence of applicable rules but the difficulty of applying them consistently under considerable time and procedural pressure.

She also stressed that responsibility for the proper use of ex-parte orders did not rest solely on judges.

“It is also a shared responsibility, one that rests not only upon those who grant such orders, but equally upon those who request, advise on, and process them,” she said.

Ex-parte orders are generally granted without first hearing the opposing party and may be necessary where urgent intervention is required to prevent imminent harm or preserve the subject matter of a dispute.

However, their use raises concerns when procedural safeguards are ignored, reliefs are granted without sufficient justification or affected parties are denied a timely opportunity to respond.

Interim reliefs can also be necessary to protect rights pending the final determination of a case. Their proper application requires courts to balance urgency against the constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and due process.

Bassey said the seminar would provide an opportunity to deepen participants’ understanding of the legal basis, scope and limitations of such orders, examine the circumstances in which they were appropriate and identify safeguards against abuse.

She added that the discussions should promote consistency in applying court rules, strengthen oversight mechanisms and address the implications of improper orders for access to justice and public confidence in the judiciary.

“Central to our discussions is the constitutional principle that the urgency of interim relief must at all times be balanced against the guarantees of fair hearing and due process,” she said.

The seminar is expected to culminate in a communiqué setting out key observations, recommendations and proposed actions arising from the deliberations.

The document is intended to support sustained engagement with judicial institutions, including the NJC, on improving procedural safeguards, promoting consistency in judicial practice and strengthening accountability.

Bassey commended the Federal Ministry of Justice for convening the engagement as part of its ongoing court rules reform process and acknowledged the contributions of the FJSRCC, IJAP and other partners.

She urged participants to engage candidly and constructively, stressing that meaningful reform required collective commitment from judicial officers, lawyers and other actors involved in the administration of justice.

ActionAid Nigeria, she said, remained committed to supporting the process.

Beyond ex-parte applications, IJAP has advanced a broader set of recommendations aimed at strengthening judicial accountability, improving electoral dispute resolution and promoting transparency in Nigeria’s justice and governance systems.

The panel proposed restructuring the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria to reduce the concentration of powers, introducing greater transparency in judicial appointments and allowing citizens to scrutinise proposed appointees.

It also recommended improved recruitment and continuous training for judicial staff, an upward review of judges’ remuneration and retirement benefits, and an online platform through which citizens could report judicial misconduct.

Other proposals include electronic recording or live coverage of court proceedings, exchange programmes for judicial officers, stronger public communication by the judiciary and more expeditious determination of cases involving constitutional interpretation and other matters of national importance.

The panel further called for more effective accountability mechanisms, including extending the application of the Code of Conduct Bureau Act to post-tenure accountability for judges.

A substantial part of IJAP’s recommendations concerns electoral disputes, which have repeatedly tested Nigeria’s judicial institutions and shaped public perceptions of the electoral process.

The panel called for pre-election cases to be determined before elections wherever practicable, arguing that timely decisions would promote fairness, reduce multiple lawsuits and improve election administration.

It proposed reducing the period for determining election petitions from 180 days to a maximum of 120 days.

IJAP, whose position was presented by Professor Jummai Audi, also recommended reviewing the appellate structure for election disputes.

Under its proposal, appeals concerning House of Representatives, Senate and governorship elections would generally end at the Court of Appeal, while presidential pre-election matters would begin at the Court of Appeal and terminate at the Supreme Court.

The panel further called for courts to prioritise substantial justice over technicalities in pre-election matters, citing the Supreme Court decision in Ahmed v. Machina (2023).

Following its review of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, IJAP identified what it described as ambiguities concerning electronic transmission of election results.

It raised concerns about the wording of Section 60(3), particularly the phrase “shall at all times”, arguing that it could generate differing interpretations regarding the relationship between electronic transmission and the use of polling-unit result forms.

The panel proposed amending the provision to require election officials to electronically transmit results to a public portal immediately after the prescribed forms have been signed and stamped by officials and countersigned by candidates or polling agents, where available.

It recommended that transmitted results should be used to verify and confirm other results before collation.

IJAP also called for greater clarity in Sections 60 and 62 on the method and destination of results transmission, as well as the correction of an apparent cross-referencing error.

Other proposed electoral reforms include restricting certain former INEC political appointees and directorate-level staff from engaging in partisan politics for at least five years after leaving the commission, introducing independent candidacy under the Constitution and providing a constitutional basis for public-interest litigation by citizens challenging breaches of the Electoral Act and the Constitution.

The panel’s recommendations also address human rights protection and government compliance with judicial decisions.

It expressed concern over Nigeria’s reported failure to comply with the July 2024 judgment of the ECOWAS Court of Justice in Obianuju Catherine Udeh and two others v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, a case arising from the October 2020 #EndSARS protests and the Lekki shooting.

According to IJAP, failure to implement the judgment, which awarded monetary compensation to the applicants, risks damaging Nigeria’s international reputation and reinforcing perceptions that the country does not respect judicial decisions.

The panel urged Nigerian courts to adopt liberal interpretations of constitutional and human rights provisions, drawing on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to encourage the resolution of rights disputes within the domestic legal system.

It also called on the government to discourage the use of the military and other armed personnel to disperse protests and urged the Attorney-General of the Federation to ensure credible investigations into allegations of human rights violations by federal government agents, alongside appropriate punishment and reparations where violations are established.

On constitutional governance, IJAP said the National Assembly should use an ascertainable record of votes, rather than voice votes, on constitutional matters requiring a specified majority.

The panel said implementation of its recommendations would require commitment from the Attorney-General of the Federation and cooperation among judicial institutions, policymakers, electoral bodies, civil society organisations, development partners, the media and citizens.

It maintained that strengthening judicial accountability, ensuring credible electoral dispute resolution and safeguarding the rule of law were essential to restoring public confidence and consolidating Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.