“Justice for Sale?” SANs Clash as NBA President Accuses Judges of Cash-and-Carry Judgments
By Passman Akpos
ABUJA — A sweeping allegation by the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, that court judgments are increasingly influenced by bribery rather than evidence has sparked intense debate within Nigeria’s legal community, with senior advocates sharply divided over the claim.
Osigwe ignited controversy last Friday while delivering a lecture at the Ralph Opara Memorial Lecture organised by the National Association of Sea Dogs in Enugu. The lecture, themed “Judicial Corruption in Nigeria: A Menace to Democracy and Social Justice,” saw the NBA President describe corruption in the judiciary as both a “moral crisis” and a “democratic emergency.”
According to him, the judiciary—once regarded as the last hope of the common man—has come to be perceived by many Nigerians as a marketplace where justice is auctioned to the highest bidder.
“The judiciary, once revered as the last hope of the common man, is increasingly perceived as a marketplace where justice is auctioned to the highest bidder,” Osigwe said, adding that many citizens now believe court decisions are determined by the “fatness of envelopes” rather than the merits of cases.
To support his position, Osigwe cited findings from a 2024 survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the National Bureau of Statistics, which estimated that public officials received about ₦721 billion in cash bribes in 2023, with judges listed among top recipients. He also referenced an Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) report indicating that ₦9.4 billion in bribes passed through the justice sector between 2018 and 2020, with lawyers and litigants identified as major bribe-givers.
“History will judge us not by our eloquence, but by our willingness to act. The temple of justice must be cleansed to ensure the rule of law prevails over the rule of money,” the NBA President declared.
However, his remarks have drawn pushback from some senior members of the Bar. A Life Bencher and former Chairman of the Benchers Mentoring Committee, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, argued that while allegations of corruption should not be dismissed, they must be backed with specifics.
“There is nothing wrong with the President of the Bar accusing the Judiciary of being very corrupt, provided he goes further to give details of the corrupt transactions, name the judicial officers involved and their accomplices, and take steps towards investigation and prosecution,” Gadzama said in an interview.
“Anything short of this is spurious and damaging to the reputation of innocent and hardworking judicial officers.”
Another Senior Advocate, Mr. Kunle Edun, SAN, took a more nuanced position, acknowledging corruption as a systemic national problem while warning of its grave implications for justice delivery.
“The judiciary is not excluded from corruption, but what makes it particularly painful is that it is the institution that holds the country together,” Edun said.
“When justice becomes rationed on the basis of tribal politics, religion, or political affiliation, the nation’s descent begins.”
Edun also pointed to flaws in the recruitment and appointment process to the bench, arguing that politicisation and quota considerations have sometimes undermined merit, with predictable consequences for judicial integrity.
On his part, Mr. Ken Ahia, SAN, cautioned against sweeping generalisations, insisting that many judges remain diligent and incorruptible.
“I do not agree with the assertion that judicial decisions are generally determined by the ‘fatness of envelopes,’” Ahia said.“Many judgments perceived as poor result from heavy caseloads, time pressure, or lack of industry—not necessarily corruption.”
He urged that public discourse on the judiciary be evidence-based and measured, so as not to erode public confidence in the justice system.Similarly, Abuja-based senior lawyer, Mr. Lamilekan Bakre, described the blanket condemnation of the judiciary as unfair.“There are still judges who would rather lose their positions than desecrate the sanctity of the bench,” he said.
In contrast, human rights lawyer Mr. Maxwell Opara openly supported Osigwe’s position, recounting personal experiences he described as evidence of judicial misconduct.
“Some judges are corrupt. Some are swayed by fat envelopes, while others allow personal bias and hatred to influence their decisions,” Opara alleged, detailing a prolonged legal battle that he said forced him to petition the National Judicial Council (NJC).
Constitutional rights activist and author, Chief Nkereuwem Udofia Akpan, acknowledged the existence of corruption but maintained that dishonest judges are in the minority.
“Over the years, the NJC has disciplined judges through dismissals, suspensions, and warnings,” Akpan said.“Our judges are not saints, but branding all of them as corrupt is wrong and unfair.”
As the debate rages, Osigwe’s comments have reopened a long-simmering conversation about integrity, accountability, and reform within Nigeria’s justice system—one that many agree can no longer be ignored, even as opinions differ sharply on how far the rot has spread and how best to confront it.
