When Court Turns Advisory, Justice Is Being Stage-Managed

The Federal High Court’s suggestion that parties in a ₦10 billion fundamental rights suit should pursue reconciliation before a determination on the merits raises important questions about the administration of justice.
While alternative dispute resolution has its place in civil disputes, cases bordering on alleged violations of constitutional rights are different. Such matters are not merely private disagreements; they seek judicial interpretation of the law and clarification of constitutional obligations.
When a court appears more eager to encourage settlement than to determine whether a fundamental right has been breached, it risks creating the perception that justice is being stage-managed rather than decisively administered.
The suit filed by Nollywood actor Emeka Ike against Lere Olayinka and INEC is not only about compensation. It also seeks answers to significant legal questions concerning data privacy, the limits of public access to voter information, and the responsibilities of public institutions under the Nigerian Constitution and the Nigeria Data Protection Act.
Whether the claims ultimately succeed or fail should be determined through a full judicial hearing based on the evidence and the law. A clear pronouncement would not only resolve the dispute between the parties but also provide guidance for future cases involving the privacy rights of Nigerians.
Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. In matters involving constitutional rights and public interest, judicial clarity is often more valuable than negotiated silence.