28/06/2026
Has Justice Been Sold?
There is a striking coincidence that deserves attention before we assess the recent judgment against the Nigeria Democratic Congress. Justice Isah Dashen — the same judge who set aside the NDC's registration on June 26, 2026 — is the very judge who, in 2022, delivered what many legal observers considered one of the more intellectually honest rulings of that period: the decision affirming former President Goodluck Jonathan's eligibility to contest the 2023 presidential election.
To understand why that earlier ruling mattered, one must recall the political climate that produced it. In the build-up to the 2023 general election, rumours swirled that Jonathan was considering a return to the presidential race. The prospect alarmed a section of the political establishment, particularly those who feared his entry would fracture the Southern alignment they had carefully cultivated against their interests.
To foreclose that possibility, two APC members — Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham — approached the Federal High Court in Bayelsa State, appearing before Justice Dashen. Their prayer was straightforward: disqualify Jonathan on the grounds that he had already exhausted his constitutional tenure. Their argument rested on the Fourth Alteration to the Constitution, enacted by the National Assembly in 2018, which they interpreted as barring anyone who had completed a predecessor's tenure from serving more than one additional elected term. Since Jonathan had completed late President Umaru Yar'Adua's term after being sworn in as Acting President in 2010, and had subsequently won a full term in 2011, they contended he had no further constitutional room to contest.
Justice Dashen disagreed, and his reasoning was meticulous. He held that Jonathan's assumption of office in 2010 was not the product of a personal electoral victory but a constitutional succession following a sitting president's death. Jonathan had been elected only once — in 2011 — and therefore could not be said to have violated the tenure provisions of Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution. The judge further held that the 2018 constitutional amendment, restricting those who had completed another president's tenure to only one additional term, could not be applied retroactively to someone who had already left office in 2015. The principle against retrospective application of law, he reasoned, placed Jonathan beyond the reach of that amendment.
It was a judgment widely praised for its internal logic and constitutional fidelity. Crucially, it was never challenged on appeal — a testament to its persuasive authority.
Those who followed Justice Dashen's jurisprudence over the years after that ruling encountered a judge who seemed to hold consistency and sound legal reasoning in high regard. His subsequent decisions reflected the work of a jurist who understood that the power of a court rests not in the finality of its pronouncements, but in the quality of the reasoning that earns them public trust.
Which is why the NDC ruling has left so many people disquieted.
On June 26, 2026, the Federal High Court in Lokoja — presided over by Justice Dashen — overturned its own December 2025 judgment that had compelled INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress as a political party. (Pegasus Reporters) The judge ruled that the earlier proceedings were constitutionally defective, holding that failure to hear all interested parties rendered the judgment a nullity. He consequently ordered that the status quo be restored and directed that the substantive suit be heard afresh, with all necessary parties joined.
The technical basis for the reversal was the claim by the Peace Movement Party that it had not been joined in the original suit despite asserting ownership of the logo used by the NDC in its registration documents. The NDC's National Chairman, Senator Moses Cleopas, described the application as illegal and an outright abuse of court process, arguing that any aggrieved party ought to have challenged the original judgment at the Court of Appeal rather than seek to overturn it through a fresh motion before the same court. (Businessday NG)
The NDC and its supporters have not taken this lying down. The party's House of Representatives Caucus Leader, Hon. Victor Afam Ogene, described the order as a judicial coup against democracy. (Tribune Online) Former Bayelsa State Governor and NDC National Leader Senator Henry Dickson described the ruling as unlawful and politically motivated, saying the order lacked legal merit and was intended to attack the foundational credibility of the party. (The Nation)
The political context makes these reactions difficult to dismiss as mere partisanship. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar accused President Bola Tinubu of undermining Nigeria's democracy through judicial means, warning that such moves could lead to a one-party state ahead of the 2027 general election. (Ndr)
What makes this case particularly troubling is not simply the outcome — courts do, legitimately, revisit decisions when procedural lapses are identified. The disquiet runs deeper than that. It is the contrast. Here is a judge whose landmark 2022 ruling on Jonathan's eligibility held that a law enacted after a man had already left office could not reach back and strip away rights he had already exercised. A man who demonstrated that he understood the constitutional principle that justice must be prospective, not punitive and retroactive.
And yet, in the NDC matter, his court set aside a judgment that had already been fully executed — a party registered, congresses held, primaries conducted, candidates nominated — on grounds that a necessary party was not heard. Material facts were said to have been suppressed in obtaining the 2025 judgment. (Ndr) Whether that finding is legally sustainable, or whether it is itself an exercise in retroactive reasoning of the kind Justice Dashen once firmly rejected, is now a question for the Court of Appeal.
But ordinary Nigerians watching from the outside are entitled to ask a harder question — one that transcends procedural technicalities.
A judge who once demonstrated the intellectual courage to shield a man from political persecution through sound constitutional reasoning now finds himself at the centre of a ruling that many believe is designed to achieve exactly what sound constitutional reasoning should prevent: the silencing of an opposition platform on the eve of a consequential election.
Perhaps the procedural defect identified by Justice Dashen is genuine and the law truly demanded the outcome he reached. Courts are not obligated to produce popular judgments, and due process admits no exception simply because an election is approaching. That much must be conceded.
But if the law was truly the master here, the reasoning will withstand appellate scrutiny. If it does not — if the Court of Appeal finds that the trial court exceeded its powers by revisiting a concluded matter through a side door — then the question Nigerians are already whispering will have earned a formal answer.
Has justice been sold?
Only the appellate court, and ultimately history, will tell.
