THE NEEDLESS FLIPPANCY OF CHIDI ODINKALU: URGENT NEED FOR RESTRAINT, RESPECT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS, AND RESPONSIBLE AND SENSIBLE CRITICISM, DEVOID OF POLITICAL UNDERTONES, AN ULTIMATUM TO ISSUE A WRITTEN APOLOGY TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF FCT AND HON JUSTICE SYLVANUS ORIJI, BY PROF CHIDI ODINKALU, WITHIN THE NEXT SEVEN DAYS
In the past weeks, the nation of Nigeria has been engulfed in protests, which in some states turned violent. Most states of the federation foresaw the likelihood of violence, destruction of properties, and massive lootings by miscreants taking advantage of the protest to perpetrate their evil acts. They took remedial steps to curb the spread of vandalism by limiting the protest only to specified locations.
The proactive measures taken by Lagos and Ogun states, which applied to the court to limit the protest within certain locations, underscore the crucial role of the legal process and the rule of law in preventing violence and looting while balancing the rights of protesters in Nigeria.
Given the precedents set by other states, it was not unexpected that the FCT administration would also seek lawful measures, through the High Court of FCT, to restrict the areas for demonstrations or protests to the stadium. This action was a crucial part of maintaining law and order and ensuring the safety of the public by the Minister of the FCT, just as done at the directive of the governors of other states of the Federation.
It was, therefore, disheartening to read Chidi Odinkalu’s disrespectful and disparaging remarks against the revered Hon. Justice Sylvanus Oriji, particularly in relation to the court orders. This incident underscores the need for respectful criticism based on verifiable facts, procedural rules and law, especially from a legal professional of his stature, a Professor of law, and a human rights activist who once led the National Human Rights Commission in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
One may wish to forgive the Professor of Law for his inherent and palpable ignorance of judicial processes since the Professor is not a known practising lawyer in Nigeria. However, given Prof Chidi Odinkalu’s now frequent, incessant, and consistent insults and disrespectful comments against judicial officers, it became necessary to put the facts straight.
Not too long ago, before the protest that took place in the nation, Prof Chidi Odinkalu, wrote on Thisday online publication accessible at THE ROMANCE BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIARY – THISDAYLIVE, against the Chief Judge of FCT and Hon Minster of FCT, Nyesom Wike, as follows:
Two years after his inauguration in October 2021 as Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT High Court), Husseini Baba Yusuf, decided in November 2023 that it was time to indulge in a sport of institutional mating games with the newly installed Minister of the Federal Capital, Ezenwo Nyesom Wike. By a stroke of coincidence, both men are members of the Body of Benchers, which describes itself as “the legal body of practitioners of the highest distinction in the legal profession.”
To initiate the mating, the Chief Judge relocated to the office of the Minister with the judges of the court where they proudly put their assets on display for the edification of the minister. At the meeting, he reminded the Minister that “as a judiciary we are part of the government and we expect that we should be able to do things that should make government work….”
The Chief Judge was desperate to let the Minister know how ready he was to consummate this relationship. To ensure that he got fullest ministerial attentions, the Chief Judge made it known that he had instructed the Administrative Judges in charge of the various judicial divisions of the FCT High Court that all cases involving the Federal Capital Territory “would only be assigned by the Chief Judge.”
The following quarter, when the FCT High Court went into the market for judicial appointments, they allocated one out of the 12 new vacancies on offer to the FCT Minister, to which he promptly deputed his sister-in-law. As the new judges got inaugurated in July 2024, the Minister quickly announced that the judges in the FCT the proud beneficiaries of new housing development. The relationship between the Chief Judge and the Minister had moved from intent to intercourse.
Again, after the interim orders, obtained by the Federal Capital Territory Administration, Prof Chidi Odinkalu, was quoted in Premium Times online publication, accessible on In the matter of the yam eating division of the FCT High Court, By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu (premiumtimesng.com), as follows:
With little ado, this yam-eating court quickly granted all the orders sought, including “an order restraining the 1st-5th defendants from gathering or parading themselves along any roadway, street, offices and or public premises/property within the FCT between 1st-10th August 2024 or any other day thereafter pending the hearing and determination of” this case. Instead, the Court required all intending protesters from anywhere within the 7,315 km² of the FCT to converge at the Stadium at the entrance into the city…
It is, therefore, given the above background, that it became expedient to call Prof Chidi Odinkalu to order. Persistently disparaging judicial officers, without any iota of proof, beyond his putative, illusory, and delusive perception of the state of affairs from his warped, pessimistic and jaundiced stance against judicial officers of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is criminal in nature and ought to be investigated, to act as a deterrent.
It is, therefore, incumbent on my person, as a minister in the temple of justice, and indeed every other lawyer in Nigeria, to protect the integrity of the institution of the judiciary in Nigeria. The institution may not be perfect. There may be a few bad eggs, but certainly, not Hon Justice Sylvanus Oriji of the High Court of FCT, the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court or the Chief Justice of the Federation. Every Lawyer in FCT will attest to the sterling and exceptional records of Hon Justice Oriji, in the bench of the High Court of the FCT, Abuja.
It is, expedient to bring to the attention of the general public, misinformed by the disparaging remarks of Prof Chidi Odinkalu, the facts as they pertain to the motion ex parte granted by Hon Justice Sylvanus Oriji.
FILING AND ASSIGNMENT OF CASES DURING THE ANNUAL VACATION OF THE HIGH COURT OF FCT
It is to be noted, and for the information of Prof Chidi Odinkalu, that during the vacations of the High Court of FCT, vacation courts are constituted, with the most senior judge, acting as the administrative head of the vacation court. When cases are filed before the vacation courts, the administrative judge has the discretion to assign the cases to either any of the appointed vacation judges or to himself, depending on the nature and subject matter of the case, and also given the experience, and age of the judges in the bench among several other innumerable factors.
Given the delicate nature of the case at hand, one was therefore not surprised that Hon Justice Oriji, being the most Senior Judge among the vacation judges, assigned the case to himself. Several other factors may have also played roles in the decision of the judge to assign the matter to himself, including the availability of other judges, given the looming protest and its concomitant dangers. Another factor that may have also swayed the decision of the judge to hear the application is the exigency of time and national security, at the moment.
We must also bear in mind that prior to the order of the FCT High Court, about two or three other states had already gotten the same orders from the various High Courts for the safety of lives and properties in those states. So, did Hon Justice Sylvanus Oriji, do any wrong by assigning the matter to himself and hearing it expeditiously? The answer is a definite No.
INJUNCTIONS, ESPECIALLY INTERIM INJUNCTIONS, VIA EX PARTE APPLICATIONS ARE NOT GRANTED AS A MATTER OF CAUSE
While it is true that injunctions, whether interim or interlocutory, are granted at the discretion of the courts, such discretion is applied judicially and judiciously. Over time, the apex court in Nigeria has laid down certain conditions that have to be met before an order of injunction, whether interim or interlocutory, is granted by a court of law. These conditions are guiding criteria for the application of judicial discretion in either granting or refusing an application ex parte for interim injunctions.
Conditions for the grant of interim injunction
Interim injunction is a preservatory measure taken quite early before the Court has had an opportunity to hear and weigh fully the evidence on both sides, and it is intended to preserve matters. The principles governing the grant of an interim injunction are –
- The Applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried, and that there is a real urgency.
- He must show that the balance of convenience is on his side; that is, that more justice will result in granting the application than in refusing it.
- He must show that his conduct is not reprehensible for example that he is not guilty of any delay.
- No order for an interim injunction should be made unless the Applicant gives a satisfactory undertaking as to damages. see Akinpelu V. Adegbore (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1096) 531 SC; Obeya Memorial Specialist Hospital V. A-G., Fed. & Anor. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 SC at 238, Ita V. Nyong (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt.318) 56.
I am certain that the Claimants/Applicants demonstrated by the affidavit in support of the motion on ex parte that there was real urgency, that damages would be inadequate, and that the balance of convenience was in their favour before Hon Justice Sylvanus Oriji exercised his discretion in granting the application. Balance of convenience means the disadvantage to one side or the other, which damages cannot compensate. It is also defined as – “A balancing test that courts use to decide whether to issue a preliminary (i.e. interlocutory) injunction stopping the Defendant’s allegedly infringing or unfair practices, weighing the benefit to the Plaintiff and the public against the burden on the Defendant“. – see Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.
It is to be further noted that the balance of convenience is predicated and presumed actively on the existence of “competing legal rights” to the res. “In the absence of such competition of rights, there is nothing for the Court to balance” – see Leasing Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Tiger Ind. Ltd. (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt.1054) 346. In the case under reference, the legal rights in issue are the constitutional rights of the public in FCT to the safety of their lives and properties and the constitutional rights of the protesters to express themselves and move freely. Weighed on the imaginary scale of justice, every right-thinking or reasonable individual will naturally come to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of granting the application rather than refusing it.
The determination of where the balance of convenience lies is a question of fact and not law. The Court is expected to deduce the answer from the facts before it- see Agbogu v. Okoye (2008) All FWLR (Pt.414) 1524, where Nzeako, JCA, added that “it is a question of justice”. Consequently, if no steps were taken actively by the Court, as already done in a few other states of the federation, while the suit is pending before the court, lives and properties will be destroyed in the FCT.
Nnaemeka-Agu JSC in Kotoye v. C.B.N. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 419, said thus, while considering the issue of balance of convenience:
“It means that more justice will result in granting the application than in refusing it.”
In the face of national security, in the face of palpable threats to the lives and properties of the majority of the citizens of this great country Nigeria, resident in Abuja, was more justice served by the granting of the application? The answer is a definite yes.
UNRESTRAINED AND PERSISTENT INSULTS ON JUDICIAL OFFICERS, NOW A PART-TIME HUBBY OF PROF CHIDI ODINKALU
Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, provides as follows:
The decisions of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other courts established by this Constitution shall enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, a
Reference is also made to the case of AG ANAMBRA STATE v. AG FRN & ORS(2005) LPELR-13(SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:
“The law in this instance is clear that it is settled that it is the unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged and this the moreso, where the person affected by the order believes it to be irregular or void. In so far as the order exists, it must be obeyed to the letter. See Military Govemor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu & Anor. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 SC. An order of court, no matter the fundamental vice attaching thereto, remains legally binding and valid until set aside by due process of law.”Per TOBI ,J.S.C ( P. 54, paras. C-F )
Further reference is made to the case of PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. AJANG ALFRED ILIYA & ORS (2023) LPELR-61537(CA); where it was held as follows:
When a Court of law makes an order that affects the status of a party or group of persons, it no longer lies within the discretion of that party to elect how to obey that Order or whether to obey it. Compliance to Court Order must be total and not partial. Judgments of Court must be obeyed to the latter or in full. The effect of noncompliance with subsisting Court’s order will be devastatingly earth-shaking, equivalent to an earthquake. A Court of law must not only bark but must bark and bite and if situation warrants, break the bones not for anything but to teach a party in disobedience that it was a joke taken too far to overlook a subsisting order of Court and pretends as if the order does not exist. Democracy is anchored on the rule of law, not on rule of might. Where a person makes an attempt to disparage an Order of Court, the Court that made the Order or another Court of competent jurisdiction that is seised of the proceedings where the alleged disobedience is raised should do everything possible to ensure that the order is not treated with disdain. This is to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the Court of law.”
Per ABANG ,JCA (Pp. 22-23, paras. A-C)
Prof Odinkalu, a human rights activist, should know better that all courts of record in Nigeria exercise their powers by virtue of the powers as donated to them, by section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Reference is made to section 6(6a&b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended which provides as follows:
(6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section –
(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law;
(b) shall extend, to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person;
From the provisions of the Constitution above, the discretionary exercise of powers by courts draws its legitimacy from the Constitution, which is the grundnorm. The Constitution equally gave a right of appeal to any individual dissatisfied with the decision of court. See sections 241 and 242 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
As a renown human rights activist, one expects that Prof Chidi Odinkalu, should be conversant with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as it pertains to:
- Obedience to orders of court.
- Appeal against judgments of court.
If Prof Chidi Odinkalu is aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of FCT, Abuja, presided over by Hon Justice Sulvanus Oriji, why did he not appeal against the decision.
The conducts of Professor Chidi Odinkalu, by posting false, and ,malicious allegations against not just Hon Justice Sylvanus Oriji, the Chief Judge of FCT, and the Chief Justice of the Federation, offend the provisions of sections 24 and 26 of the CYBERCRIMES (PROHIBITION, PREVENTION, ETC) AMENDMENT ACT, 2024.
DEMAND FOR APOLOGY TO THE HON CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA, HON CHIEF JUDGE OF FCT HIGH COURT, HON JUSTICE SYLVANUS ORJI, AND INDEED TO THE NIGERIAN JUDICIARY BY PROF CHIDI ODINKALU
It is, therefore, given the foregoing, that I call on Prof Chidi Odinkalu to publish a written apology to the Nigerian Judiciary, to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Chief Judge of the FCT, and Hon Justice Sylvanus Oriji, for his mendacious, malicious and disrespectful statements against them. If he fails or neglects to apologize for his conduct, we will petition the state security services, the Nigeria Police Force and all other relevant security agencies for his investigation, arrest and prosecution before a court of law for his conduct which offend sections 24 and 26 of the CYBERCRIMES (PROHIBITION, PREVENTION, ETC) AMENDMENT ACT, 2024.
Sir, Nkem Okoro Esq (LL.M)
For and on behalf of concerned Lawyers
In the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja, Nigeria
