By Henry Ojelu
In Nigeria’s already burdened judicial system—where litigants often wait years for resolution—a troubling pattern persists: cases collapsing or restarting from scratch after judges are reassigned mid-trial. This practice, though administrative, has become a significant barrier to justice.
At its 108th meeting on April 30, 2025, the National Judicial Council (NJC) finally took a firm stance, issuing sweeping guidelines to curtail the trend. But for many, including former INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mike Igini, that intervention came far too late.
Read Also:NJC Makes Landmark Decision Over De Novo Cases On Account of Mike Igini’s N5b Suit In Edo
NJC Makes Landmark Decision Over De Novo Cases On Account of Mike Igini’s N5b Suit In Edo
The NJC’s caution to the Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Daniel Okungbowa, over his handling of a four-year-old defamation case filed by Igini, exposes how administrative decisions—when poorly applied—can derail justice and devastate litigants.
A Case of Systemic Breakdown
Igini’s ordeal began in 2020 when he filed a defamation suit against Col. David Imuse (Rtd), a prominent politician, after being publicly accused of colluding with then-Governor Godwin Obaseki to rig the Edo gubernatorial election. The allegations, widely reported in the media, were, according to Igini, entirely false and damaging to his reputation.
With INEC’s consent, Igini approached the Edo State High Court. The case was assigned to Justice V.O. Eboreime, and over the next four years, he presented three witnesses—himself included—despite numerous adjournments and courtroom delays. By November 2023, Igini had closed his case. The two co-defendant newspapers, The Sun and Tribune, had also finished presenting their defense. Only the 1st defendant, Col. Imuse, was yet to mount a defense.
Then came the shocker.
In August 2024, citing the judge’s routine transfer, Chief Judge Okungbowa reassigned the matter to a new judge and ordered that the entire trial restart de novo—from the beginning. Just like that, four years of litigation, testimony, and legal costs were wiped away.
A Trail of Delays and Allegations
In his petition to the NJC dated November 5, 2024, Igini alleged that the reassignment followed calculated attempts by the 1st defendant to delay or frustrate the case. Despite receiving court papers back in 2020, Col. Imuse reportedly delayed filing a defense until after Igini had rested his case—nearly three years later. He then submitted a petition to the former Chief Judge, alleging bias against the presiding judge after certain rulings favored Igini.
That initial petition was dismissed, and the trial was cleared to continue.
However, in 2024, with a new Chief Judge at the helm, Imuse reportedly made a fresh request—this time quietly—to have the case reassigned. Despite strong objections from both Igini and the co-defendant newspapers, Chief Judge Okungbowa approved the request and insisted the matter start afresh.
When Igini’s lawyers pleaded for a judicial “warrant” to allow the original judge to conclude the trial—citing the death of a key witness and the advanced stage of proceedings—the request was denied. The Chief Judge argued that the 1st defendant had not given consent.
That insistence on a defendant’s approval before a judge can continue a transferred case became the central issue in Igini’s complaint—and the basis for NJC’s disciplinary action.
Judicial Discretion or Abuse?
On June 25, 2025, the NJC reviewed the case and issued a formal caution to Justice Okungbowa. In its public statement, the Council warned against “abuse of judicial discretion” and emphasized that powers must be exercised “judicially and judiciously.”
The NJC linked its action directly to Igini’s petition and raised alarm over how judge transfers and administrative decisions were increasingly being used to undermine justice.
A circular dated June 16, 2025, instructed all heads of court that trials which have reached advanced stages or are awaiting judgment must no longer be reassigned—regardless of petitions or complaints from involved parties.
Furthermore, it clarified that judges who have been transferred no longer need special authorization (a fiat) to conclude pending matters—removing a long-standing procedural bottleneck.
A Worrying National Pattern
Igini’s experience is not isolated. Legal professionals say this misuse of judicial discretion is widespread and worsening.
“It’s a subtle but effective form of injustice,” said Lagos-based lawyer, Oyewole Adeniran. “Once a judge is replaced, every witness must return, every document must be re-tendered, every cross-examination starts over. But what happens when witnesses die or relocate? The case collapses.”
That is exactly what happened in Igini’s case. One of his key witnesses, Mr. Kingsley, passed away before the retrial began. Years of work, money, and emotional investment were reduced to nothing.
Allegations of Political Interference
The case also raises deeper concerns about political interference in judicial proceedings.
“That the 1st defendant—a political actor—could influence a procedural decision of the court sends the wrong message,” said a senior member of the Nigerian Bar Association, speaking anonymously.
“It tells the public that with enough influence, any trial can be disrupted,” he added.
For Igini, a staunch advocate of free and fair elections, the case goes beyond personal defamation.
“The attack wasn’t just on me,” he said. “It was meant to erode confidence in INEC as an institution.”
Charting a Way Forward
The NJC’s new policy is a welcome intervention, but the real challenge lies in enforcement. Without strict oversight, heads of court—especially at state level—may continue to wield administrative powers with little accountability.
As the NJC made clear in its caution to Justice Okungbowa, judicial discretion must serve the cause of justice—not convenience or political pressure.
Mike Igini’s case is a cautionary tale of how years of courtroom effort can be undone by a single administrative decision. If Nigeria’s civil justice system is to retain public trust, judge transfers, trial delays, and procedural abuses must be addressed urgently and decisively.
Otherwise, more citizens may find themselves victims of a system that was meant to protect them—but instead leaves them stranded, unheard, and defeated.
