Abstract
Besides the large number of political cases and election petitions on Nigerian courts’ dockets, the judicial system is overflowing with conflicting judgments from courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction on the same or related facts, embarrassing the Bar and Bench and undermining the rule of law. This undermines public trust in the judiciary and causes legal minds to become confused, thereby raising questions as to whether courts’ judgments are not product of the passions, emotions, and personal idiosyncrasies of judges as opposed to rules of law. The legal theory of the realist school of jurisprudence, which holds that judges’ personal inclinations, quirks, or ‘hunches—rather than logic—are the basis for the decisions that the courts make, which are referred to as laws. The purpose of this study is to examine and assess the relevance of legal realism in modern-day Nigeria by examining conflicting verdicts of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction in political cases and election petitions. This is an intended critique of Legal Realism in the Nigerian experience. While applying the doctrinal method, this research has made a finding that given the conflicts in judgments of courts of equal jurisdiction in election petitions and political cases on same or similar facts, Legal Realism is still relevant in contemporary Nigeria. It is recommended that adherence to legal formalism amongst other measures, is the panacea to the sour effects of such conflicting judgments.
Keywords: Conflict, Coordinate Jurisdiction, Judgment, Legal Realism.