₦airaland Forum

When news broke that Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, had died, the moment called for reflection rather than noise. Death has a way of closing a chapter, but it does not close the conversation about what that chapter meant. For many Nigerians, especially ordinary citizens whose only real encounter with democracy is on election day, Tanko Muhammad’s legacy will forever be tied to Imo State, January 14, 2020.

That day, the Supreme Court overturned the outcome of the 2019 Imo State governorship election and installed a candidate who had not been declared winner at the polls. The decision rested on the inclusion of results from hundreds of polling units that had earlier been excluded. On paper, it was a judicial correction. In the hearts of many Nigerians, it felt like something else entirely: the erasing of their voices.

For the common voter, elections already demand patience, courage, and faith. People wake before dawn, stand in long lines, and cast ballots in the hope that their small act will matter. When a court later appears to reverse that collective effort, the pain cuts deep. Many citizens did not read legal briefs or judgments; they felt the outcome. To them, it looked as though thousands of votes had been wiped away by men in robes, far removed from the dust, sweat, and fear of the polling unit.

This is where the real damage occurred, not only in Imo State, but across the country. The judgment fed an existing fear that elections in Nigeria do not truly belong to the people. Conversations in buses, markets, and homes changed tone. “Why vote?” some asked. “If courts can decide everything, what is the point?” That quiet despair may be the most enduring consequence of the case.

Imo State itself became a symbol of instability. Protests followed. Political tensions deepened. Trust in institutions thinned. What should have been a legal resolution instead widened the distance between the judiciary and the public it is meant to serve. Even those who defended the ruling as legally sound struggled to answer a simpler question that ordinary Nigerians kept asking: how can justice feel so far from fairness?

Under Tanko Muhammad’s leadership, the judiciary began to look, to many eyes, less like a neutral guardian and more like an extension of political power. Whether that perception was accurate or not mattered less than the fact that it took hold. Once people stop believing courts are independent, the damage spreads beyond election cases. It reaches everyday life: the poor person who believes justice is only for sale, the accused who assumes guilt before trial, the citizen who thinks connections matter more than truth.

Tanko Muhammad’s tenure ended amid internal turmoil within the judiciary itself, further reinforcing the sense of an institution struggling to hold its moral center. By the time he left office, public confidence had already been deeply shaken.

Now that he is gone, it would be easy to soften the past or speak only of his rise through the judiciary. But honesty matters, especially if Nigeria hopes to rebuild trust in its courts. A legacy is not only what a judge intended, but what the people experienced. And for many Nigerians, the Imo judgment became a turning point—a moment when belief in the power of the ballot began to fade.

This is not about celebrating or condemning a man in death. It is about acknowledging the harm done to public faith and learning from it. Courts do not survive on authority alone; they survive on legitimacy. When people believe judges can overturn their will without clear, convincing explanations, democracy itself weakens.
Tanko Muhammad’s death closes his personal story, but the lesson remains alive. If the judiciary is to recover, it must remember that justice is not only about legal correctness. It is also about being seen, felt, and understood as fair. Because once people lose faith in the courts, they do not run to the law—they turn away from it.

ogugwa1992:
When news broke that Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, had died, the moment called for reflection rather than noise. Death has a way of closing a chapter, but it does not close the conversation about what that chapter meant. For many Nigerians, especially ordinary citizens whose only real encounter with democracy is on election day, Tanko Muhammad’s legacy will forever be tied to Imo State, January 14, 2020.
That day, the Supreme Court overturned the outcome of the 2019 Imo State governorship election and installed a candidate who had not been declared winner at the polls. The decision rested on the inclusion of results from hundreds of polling units that had earlier been excluded. On paper, it was a judicial correction. In the hearts of many Nigerians, it felt like something else entirely: the erasing of their voices.

For the common voter, elections already demand patience, courage, and faith. People wake before dawn, stand in long lines, and cast ballots in the hope that their small act will matter. When a court later appears to reverse that collective effort, the pain cuts deep. Many citizens did not read legal briefs or judgments; they felt the outcome. To them, it looked as though thousands of votes had been wiped away by men in robes, far removed from the dust, sweat, and fear of the polling unit.

This is where the real damage occurred, not only in Imo State, but across the country. The judgment fed an existing fear that elections in Nigeria do not truly belong to the people. Conversations in buses, markets, and homes changed tone. “Why vote?” some asked. “If courts can decide everything, what is the point?” That quiet despair may be the most enduring consequence of the case.

Imo State itself became a symbol of instability. Protests followed. Political tensions deepened. Trust in institutions thinned. What should have been a legal resolution instead widened the distance between the judiciary and the public it is meant to serve. Even those who defended the ruling as legally sound struggled to answer a simpler question that ordinary Nigerians kept asking: how can justice feel so far from fairness?

Under Tanko Muhammad’s leadership, the judiciary began to look, to many eyes, less like a neutral guardian and more like an extension of political power. Whether that perception was accurate or not mattered less than the fact that it took hold. Once people stop believing courts are independent, the damage spreads beyond election cases. It reaches everyday life: the poor person who believes justice is only for sale, the accused who assumes guilt before trial, the citizen who thinks connections matter more than truth.

Tanko Muhammad’s tenure ended amid internal turmoil within the judiciary itself, further reinforcing the sense of an institution struggling to hold its moral center. By the time he left office, public confidence had already been deeply shaken.

Now that he is gone, it would be easy to soften the past or speak only of his rise through the judiciary. But honesty matters, especially if Nigeria hopes to rebuild trust in its courts. A legacy is not only what a judge intended, but what the people experienced. And for many Nigerians, the Imo judgment became a turning point—a moment when belief in the power of the ballot began to fade.

This is not about celebrating or condemning a man in death. It is about acknowledging the harm done to public faith and learning from it. Courts do not survive on authority alone; they survive on legitimacy. When people believe judges can overturn their will without clear, convincing explanations, democracy itself weakens.
Tanko Muhammad’s death closes his personal story, but the lesson remains alive. If the judiciary is to recover, it must remember that justice is not only about legal correctness. It is also about being seen, felt, and understood as fair. Because once people lose faith in the courts, they do not run to the law—they turn away from it.

https://leaders.ng/2025/12/19/tanko-muhammad-and-the-judgment-that-shook-public-faith/

seunmsg:
The worst judgment in recent memory has to be the judgement that made Duoye Diri of PDP the governor of Bayelsa state. It was a reckless judgement with no basis in law and it was delivered against APC. The Supreme Court was so ashamed they have to announce they’ve departed from the judgement and it can’t be cited as a precedent.

So, quit all the cries about Imo and let’s hear word. Even the judgement that gifted Zamfara to PDP was worse than the Imo judgement and the Supreme Court had also stopped court from interfering in internal affairs of a political party.

Stephen0mozzy:
Why do you all seem to cowardly wait for them to die before una come out to call a spade a spade.

Go and hang pls. Mtcheew.

PulaPower:
Story..

Nigeria did not start in 2019..

What about the judgement of Ngige / Peter Obuko? That was the greatest robbery in history. Ngige was robbed off his mandate..

Tolumiide:
Your last line destroyed your argument. Judiciary is about legal correctness. Law care less about anyone opinion.

PulaPower:
Story..

Nigeria did not start in 2019..

What about the judgement of Ngige / Peter Obuko? That was the greatest robbery in history. Ngige was robbed off his mandate..

seunmsg:
The worst judgment in recent memory has to be the judgement that made Duoye Diri of PDP the governor of Bayelsa state. It was a reckless judgement with no basis in law and it was delivered against APC. The Supreme Court was so ashamed they have to announce they’ve departed from the judgement and it can’t be cited as a precedent.

So, quit all the cries about Imo and let’s hear word. Even the judgement that gifted Zamfara to PDP was worse than the Imo judgement and the Supreme Court had also stopped court from interfering in internal affairs of a political party.

ogugwa1992:
https://leaders.ng/2025/12/19/tanko-muhammad-and-the-judgment-that-shook-public-faith/

seunmsg:
The worst judgment in recent memory has to be the judgement that made Duoye Diri of PDP the governor of Bayelsa state. It was a reckless judgement with no basis in law and it was delivered against APC. The Supreme Court was so ashamed they have to announce they’ve departed from the judgement and it can’t be cited as a precedent.

So, quit all the cries about Imo and let’s hear word. Even the judgement that gifted Zamfara to PDP was worse than the Imo judgement and the Supreme Court had also stopped court from interfering in internal affairs of a political party.

oyebanji:
I hope you are not a lawyer. if you are then there is a problem. Please read below:

Hope Uzodinma's emergence as Imo State Governor came after the Supreme Court, in January 2020, nullified the victory of Emeka Ihedioha by adding votes from 388 unlawfully excluded polling units to Uzodinma's tally, making him the winner of the 2019 election, a decision that wasn't vacated but affirmed by later rulings,. The court found that votes totaling over 200,000, due to Uzodinma, were excluded during collation, leading to his declaration as governor despite finishing fourth initially.

The Story Behind His Emergence

Initial Election (March 2019): Emeka Ihedioha of the PDP was declared the winner of the Imo State governorship election.
The Petition: [/b]Hope Uzodinma (APC) challenged the results, claiming votes from 388 polling units were wrongly excluded.
[b]Tribunal & Appeal: Both the Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal dismissed Uzodinma's petition, finding no merit.
Supreme Court Ruling (Jan 2020): The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding that evidence of the excluded votes was admissible.
The Key Decision: The Court ordered the addition of the unlawfully excluded votes (213,695) to Uzodinma's total, making him the overall winner and declaring him Governor.

Did the Supreme Court Vacate the Judgment?

No, the Supreme Court did not vacate its initial decision. Instead, it later affirmed its verdict when other parties tried to challenge it.
In subsequent appeals, including from other candidates, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal dismissed challenges, upholding Uzodinma's victory as valid and reflecting the will of the people in that context.
In essence, Uzodinma became governor because the Supreme Court corrected what it deemed a significant error in vote collation, fundamentally changing the election outcome.

seunmsg:
The worst judgment in recent memory has to be the judgement that made Duoye Diri of PDP the governor of Bayelsa state. It was a reckless judgement with no basis in law and it was delivered against APC. The Supreme Court was so ashamed they have to announce they’ve departed from the judgement and it can’t be cited as a precedent.

So, quit all the cries about Imo and let’s hear word. Even the judgement that gifted Zamfara to PDP was worse than the Imo judgement and the Supreme Court had also stopped court from interfering in internal affairs of a political party.