The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has criticised the Federal High Court’s decision awarding N140 million in costs against members of the Board of Trustees (BoT) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as well as N10 million against their counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, warning that such heavy financial sanctions could discourage citizens from seeking judicial redress.
In a statement issued on Tuesday by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, the rights group said although courts have the constitutional discretion to award costs, such powers should be exercised in a manner that preserves public confidence in the judiciary and safeguards the constitutional right of access to justice.
According to HURIWA, the scale of the costs imposed in the case raises broader concerns about whether litigants, particularly those involved in public interest and politically sensitive matters, may become reluctant to approach the courts for fear of incurring crippling financial liabilities.
The association stressed that its concern was not with the court’s jurisdiction or the merits of the judgment but with what it described as the potential implications of imposing exceptionally high costs on unsuccessful litigants.
It argued that Section 6 of the Constitution guarantees access to the courts as the lawful avenue for resolving disputes and protecting constitutional rights, adding that judicial processes should remain accessible to all Nigerians regardless of their financial circumstances.
HURIWA noted that the plaintiffs approached the court because they believed there were legal questions surrounding the leadership of the PDP that required judicial interpretation.
“Whether those arguments ultimately succeed or fail is for the appellate courts to determine,” the association said. “However, litigants should not be discouraged from seeking legal remedies on matters they genuinely believe deserve judicial consideration.”
The group warned that the increasing use of substantial cost awards in politically significant litigation could have unintended consequences for Nigeria’s democratic process by discouraging opposition parties, civil society organisations, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens from pursuing lawful remedies through the courts.
It maintained that the judiciary derives its strength from public confidence and should continue to be seen as an impartial institution where disputes are resolved fairly and without creating unnecessary barriers to justice.
HURIWA therefore urged the Court of Appeal to give careful consideration to both the substantive issues arising from the case and the wider implications of punitive cost awards on access to justice.
The association also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), legal practitioners and constitutional scholars to initiate broader discussions on the principles governing the award of costs in politically sensitive cases.
According to HURIWA, while courts must discourage frivolous litigation, the exercise of judicial discretion in awarding costs should remain consistent with the principles of fairness, proportionality and the constitutional guarantee of access to justice.
The group reiterated that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man and should continue to inspire confidence by ensuring that justice remains accessible and affordable to all Nigerians.
