By Henry Ojelu
In Nigeria’s already encumbered judicial system, where litigants wait years for resolution, a troubling trend persists: cases being derailed at critical stages due to the reassignment of judges—often requiring trials to begin afresh after years of proceedings.
The National Judicial Council, NJC, at its 108th meeting on April 30, 2025, formally condemned this practice and issued far-reaching guidelines to curb it. But for many, including former INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mike Igini, the intervention came too late.
The NJC’s cautionary statement to the Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Daniel Okungbowa, over his handling of a four-year-old defamation suit brought by Igini, shines a spotlight on how judicial administrative powers, if misapplied, can unintentionally obstruct justice.
Systemic breakdown
Mike Igini’s ordeal began in 2020, when he sued Col. David Imuse (Rtd), a prominent politician, for libel after he was accused during a press conference of colluding with then Governor Godwin Obaseki to rig the Edo gubernatorial election. The allegations, which received wide media coverage, were, according to Igini, entirely false and damaging to his personal and professional reputation.
With the consent of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Igini filed a defamation suit at the Edo State High Court. The case was assigned to Justice V.O. Eboreime. Over four years, Igini called three witnesses, including himself, and endured numerous adjournments and procedural delays.
By November 2023, he had closed his case. The two co-defendant newspapers, The Sun and Tribune, had also concluded their defence. Only the 1st defendant, Col. Imuse, was yet to present his case.
Then, in August 2024, the case suffered a major setback. Citing the judge’s routine transfer to another division of the High Court, Chief Judge Okungbowa reassigned the case to a new judge and ordered that the trial commence de novo—from scratch. Years of hearings, travel, testimony, and legal expenses were effectively voided.
Allegations of tactical delay
According to Igini’s petition to the NJC dated November 5, 2024, the transfer decision was the culmination of a series of moves by the 1st defendant that, in his view, amounted to efforts to delay or derail the proceedings. Despite being served with court papers in 2020, Col. Imuse reportedly delayed filing his defence until after Igini had closed his case—nearly three years later. He then submitted a petition to the former Chief Judge of Edo State, alleging bias on the part of Justice Eboreime after certain rulings were made in favour of Igini.
The former Chief Judge dismissed the petition and affirmed that the trial should proceed. However, following the appointment of Justice Okungbowa as Chief Judge in 2024, Col. Imuse wrote to the new head of court—reportedly without notifying the other parties—requesting that the trial be restarted before a new judge. Justice Okungbowa granted the request, despite objections from Igini and even the co-defendants, both of whom wrote separate letters urging that Justice Eboreime be allowed to conclude the trial.
When Igini’s legal team sought a “warrant” to enable the original judge to finish the proceedings—citing the death of a key witness and years of accumulated effort—the Chief Judge declined, stating that the 1st defendant had not given consent.
This insistence that a party’s consent was necessary before allowing a transferred judge to complete a case became central to Igini’s petition and ultimately the basis for NJC’s disciplinary action.
Misuse of discretion
At its June 25, 2025, meeting, the NJC reviewed the facts and issued a formal caution to Justice Okungbowa. In a public statement, the Council warned the Chief Judge against the “abuse of judicial discretion” in the handling of Suit No. B/555/2020: Hon. Mike Igini v. Col. David Imuse (Rtd) & Ors.
He was specifically advised to exercise his powers “judicially and judiciously” in future.
The NJC’s intervention was directly linked to Igini’s petition and the Council’s broader concern over how judicial administrative actions—especially judge transfers—are increasingly disrupting trials.
In a circular issued on June 16, 2025, the NJC instructed all heads of court that “henceforth, matters that have reached an advanced stage or have been adjourned for judgment should not be transferred, irrespective of complaints by any of the parties.”
The Council also clarified that transferred judges no longer require a fiat to conclude pending cases, thereby removing a key procedural bottleneck often used to reset trials.
Worrying pattern
Igini’s case is not an isolated one. According to Lagos-based lawyer, Oyewole Adeniran, the misuse of administrative powers by some heads of court—particularly at the state level—poses a growing threat to public confidence in the judiciary.
“It’s a subtle but effective form of injustice. Once a judge is changed, every witness must return, every document must be re-tendered, every cross-examination must start over. But in some cases, witnesses have died or relocated. The case collapses,” he explained.
That is precisely what happened in Igini’s case. One of his key witnesses, Mr. Kingsley, died before he could testify again. With years of legal work rendered invalid, restarting the matter from scratch has become both emotionally and financially crushing.
Allegations of political interference
Beyond the legal implications, concerns persist that some judge transfers may be influenced by political considerations.
“It is troubling that the 1st defendant in this case—a political actor—appears to have successfully influenced the administrative process of the court,” said a senior member of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, who requested anonymity.
“It sends the wrong message: that with enough pressure, any case can be disrupted,” he added.
This perception is not lost on Igini, a long-time advocate for electoral integrity. In his petition, he argued that the defamatory allegations against him were intended not only to damage his reputation but to undermine public confidence in INEC. “It’s not just about me,” he said. “It’s about the integrity of public institutions.”
Way Forward
With its new policy directives, the NJC has taken a significant step to preserve judicial integrity. But enforcement remains the real test. Heads of court—especially at the state level—must not be allowed to wield administrative powers without transparent oversight.
Judicial discretion, as the NJC reminded in its caution to Justice Okungbowa, must serve the ends of justice—not administrative convenience or external pressure.
What Mike Igini’s case reveals is how one administrative decision can unravel years of courtroom effort. The judiciary must strive to remain a refuge, not a revolving door.
If trial delays, judge transfers, and misuse of discretion are not urgently addressed, Nigerians seeking justice in civil courts may continue to suffer in silence—until they, too, become yet another statistic in the long history of justice denied.
Source; Vanguard News Nigeria
