Judgment in the Dock

Judgment in the Dock: The NJC’s Suspension of Justice Inyang Ekwo and the Battle for Judicial Integrity

By Prince Agbedeyi O. D (+2348134902214)

The recent decision by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to suspend Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, for one year without pay marks a watershed moment in the quest to restore public confidence in Nigeria’s judiciary. In addition to the suspension, the Council has barred him from elevation for five years and placed him on its Watch List—a punitive cocktail rarely administered, yet entirely justified in this instance.

Justice Ekwo’s fall from judicial grace is not an isolated event but rather a symptom of a deeper malaise within the judicial system. According to findings, the judge had become notorious for delivering judgments without properly hearing all parties, violating one of the most sacrosanct principles of natural justice: audi alteram partem—the right to a fair hearing. In legal jurisprudence, this is not merely a procedural requirement; it is a cornerstone of due process.

The NJC’s action may seem harsh to the untrained eye, but within legal circles, it is seen as long overdue. Justice Ekwo had increasingly mirrored the judicial excesses of past controversial figures like Justice Okon Abang and the now-retired Justice Egbo Egbo—men whose names became synonymous with judicial recklessness, transactional verdicts, and authoritarian courtroom demeanour. These are judges whose rulings often undermined the credibility of the courts and fueled public suspicion that justice in Nigeria could be bought and sold.

The fact that Justice Ekwo now finds himself suspended under such damning circumstances should be a clarion call to the NJC and the entire legal community. It reinforces the urgent need for judicial accountability—not just in principle but in practice. When judges rule with impunity and treat the courtroom as a private empire, they don’t just distort justice; they delegitimize the very system they are sworn to uphold.

Legal commentators have long warned of the rise of what could be termed “judicial autocracy”—a phenomenon where certain judges wield unchecked power, rendering decisions that defy precedent, common sense, and constitutional safeguards. Justice Ekwo’s style of adjudication, critics argue, reflected a troubling indifference to the rights of litigants, especially those without political clout or financial influence.

The NJC deserves commendation for taking a stand. But it must not stop here. For every Ekwo that is disciplined, there may be others still on the bench, emboldened by a culture of silence and systemic inertia. Discipline must be institutionalized, not episodic. The judiciary must implement a more transparent complaints mechanism, regular performance evaluations, and enforceable ethical standards.

Moreover, the Bar has a role to play. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) must ensure that lawyers do not enable corrupt judges, whether through silence, complicity, or unethical legal practice. A compromised Bench is often sustained by a complicit Bar.

In conclusion, the NJC’s disciplinary action against Justice Inyang Ekwo is not merely punitive—it is symbolic. It signals that no judge is above the law, and that judicial robes do not shield misconduct. While Justice Ekwo’s name may now fade into judicial infamy, the NJC’s resolve must not. The future of Nigeria’s legal system depends on the consistent, courageous, and impartial enforcement of accountability at all levels of the Bench.