It is trite that the primary function of government is to ensure the maintenance of law and order in the society. The judiciary is the primary institution saddled with responsibility to interpret and determine whether provisions of law have been disobeyed or not. Section 6(1) of The 1999 Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria (as amended 2011) provides:
“The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation.”
The executive arm is expected by law to put in place machinery that will ensure seamless enforcement of courts’ order ipso facto judgment of the courts. Orders of court must be complied with in order to prevent anarchy in the society. The importance of adhering to order of court is so fundamental to the development and sustenance of any modern day society. No matter how dissatisfactory, court orders must be complied with for the fight against corruption to be fair and square. It was held in PAN AFRICAN BANK v. STATE [1997] 4 NWLR page 296 PAGE 304, PARAGRAPH D-E
“The general principle of practice in Nigeria courts is that a court of law is entitled to make any order on any matter of which the court is seized provided that while making the order, the court is satisfied that it has full jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter involved in the litigation process before it. Once that has been complied with, a court’s order must be obeyed by all persons irrespective of their personal feeling about the order. Even where the trial court wrongfully assumes jurisdiction, jettisoned and thrown away as though it were a garbage. It is an order of a court of law recognized as such.”
Also, in LABOUR PARTY v. INEC [2009] All FWLR PART 478, P. 250, Paragraphs D-E was held:
“A court order must be obeyed even if such order is perverse until such a time that the order is set aside by a competent court.”
Furthermore, in EUROPEAN SOAPS DETERGENT v. MW BEER & CO. LTD (2017) LPELR-41873(CA), the Court of Appeal emphasising the need to abide religiously to courts orders stated thus-
“It is trite law that once a person is a person is aware of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction made against him, he is under a duty to obey it even why taking proper steps in law to get it set aside. It would clearly be an invitation to chaos and anarchy in the society/land if a person against whom an order of a court of competent jurisdiction was made was to be permitted to disobey simply because he believes that the order was wrong on whatever ground. The proper thing to do is to cede obedience to the order of the court while taking proper and appropriate steps in law to get such law set aside. This augurs well for the rule of law and acts as antidote to chaos and anarchy in the society.”
The Supreme Court of Nigeria in APC & ORS v. KARFI & ORS (2017) LPELR-47024(SC) held-
“Every decision, including orders of a Court of law subsists and remains binding on the parties until set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It does not lie in the discretion of the party against whom the decision or judgment, including injunctive orders therein, are made to disregard the orders merely because, in his wisdom, he thinks that the orders are invalid and not binding on him. Our jurisprudence will not brook of such treachery that leads only to anarchy”. See Rossek v. A.C.B. (1993) 10 SCNJ 20 at pages 39 - 40; Arubo v. Aiyeleru (1993) KLR 23. “Per EJEMBI EKO, JSC (Pages 50 - 52 Paras B - C)
From the decided cases cited above, it is an invitation to anarchy and an anathema, particularly in the efforts at abating corruption in the society for any agency of government to cherry pick which order of court to comply with. Apart from the danger of undermining the rule of law which is central to democracy, disobedience to court orders erodes confidence of the citizens in the fight against corruption since perversion of justice is corruption itself. The war against corruption could be annihilated by utter disregard of court’s orders by some agencies/institutions fighting corruption. When a subsisting order/judgment of court is disregarded; well-intended acts of anti-corruption agencies and police could be set aside on the ground of flagrant disregard for existing order(s). In addition, such disobedience will reduce the fight against corruption to witch-hunt against perceived enemies of government and dismantle any legitimacy associated with it. Since citizens usually take cues from their government, such actions will spur ordinary citizens to disrespect judicial authority and bring disrespect to the courts.
Wilful disregard for court order therefore, is an invitation to anarchy and chaos especially by an arm of government. Strict obedience to the order of court should be unequivocal. An anti-corruption fighting agency known for persistent disregard for the orders of court will be inviting upon itself the scorn and vengeance of the court. Either favourable or unfavourable, respect for the rule of law is synonymous with respect for the order for the court. The executive arm of government must ensure that it is unyielding and fearless in the execution of courts orders. It must rise above political and sectional sentiments in ensuring that its agencies saddled with investigating and prosecuting corruption cases act in accordance with extant laws and directives of court in respect of any case they are investigating or prosecuting.
It is strategic that the war against corruption should not be monopolised by a single arm of government. There is need for the legislature and the executive to cooperate with the judiciary in ensuring that court orders are obeyed. Failure to fight the anti-corruption war collectively will lead to loss of confidence in the adjudicatory system by both the citizen and the government. If the orders of the court are not obeyed by government, it will embolden perpetrators of corrupts acts, knowing fully well that they are likely to go free. This in turn will have debilitating effect on the anti-corruption war. The economic implications of disobedience of court orders cannot be over-emphasised. It is difficult, if not impossible to secure willing investors in an environment with volatile adjudicatory and remedial system. There is no gainsaying the fact that strict compliance with court orders will boost investors’ confidence in the economy.
The downside side is that disregard for court others will be pernicious to the society at large. Rather than judges being fearless and uncompromising, the premonition that their orders will not be obeyed will affect their industry and commitment. And the society will be at the receiving end. Therefore, all principal actors in the justice system: The Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary/Court, the Prosecution, the Defence and members of the large society will have confidence in the adjudicatory system if court orders are enforced and enforceable. More so, the police and specialized agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission set up to fight corruption will have the trust and cooperation of the general society as law abiding agencies. The courts will see itself as an indispensable ally in the fight against corruption.