By BONIFACE AKARAH

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has criticised the Federal High Court’s decision awarding N150 million in costs against members of the Board of Trustees (BoT) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and their counsel, warning that the ruling could discourage Nigerians from seeking judicial redress.

According to a statement signed by HURIWA National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, the association said the N140 million cost awarded against the PDP BoT led by former Senate President Adolphus Wabara, alongside an additional N10 million awarded personally against their counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), raises “fundamental constitutional questions” about access to justice. It maintained that although courts have the authority to award costs, such powers “must never be transformed into instruments of intimidation” capable of discouraging citizens from approaching the courts.

“The frightening magnitude of these financial penalties raises fundamental constitutional questions about whether access to justice is gradually becoming a privilege reserved only for the wealthy and politically connected,” the association said.

HURIWA stressed that its position was not a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction or its authority to determine the merits of the suit, but rather a concern over what it described as excessive financial sanctions imposed on litigants.

“Our concern lies with what appears to be the judicial endorsement of punitive financial sanctions so excessive that they risk creating a dangerous precedent,” the statement noted, warning that civil society organisations, political parties and public interest litigants could become reluctant to seek judicial remedies.

The group argued that Section 6 of the Constitution vests judicial powers in the courts to encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes through legal processes rather than political confrontation or self-help.

“If litigants must now fear that an unsuccessful action could expose them to crippling financial liabilities running into hundreds of millions of naira, then the constitutional guarantee of access to justice stands gravely imperilled,” HURIWA maintained.

The association said the plaintiffs approached the court because they genuinely believed the PDP was facing what they perceived as external political interference, stressing that the validity of those claims remained a matter for judicial determination.

It added that regardless of the eventual outcome of any litigation, parties should be free to ventilate their grievances in court without fear of what it described as financial annihilation.

“Whether that perception is ultimately correct or mistaken is a matter for judicial determination. However, in every constitutional democracy, litigants must remain free to ventilate such grievances before competent courts,” the statement added.

HURIWA further warned that imposing what it described as astronomical costs in politically sensitive cases could have a chilling effect on opposition parties, activists, journalists, whistleblowers, election petitioners and ordinary citizens seeking judicial intervention.

“The courtroom must never become a place where litigants fear economic devastation merely because their legal arguments fail,” the group stated.

The association called on appellate courts to examine what it described as the growing trend of punitive cost awards and ensure that judicial discretion remains guided by the principles of fairness, proportionality, equity and access to justice.

It also urged the National Judicial Council, the Nigerian Bar Association, constitutional scholars and other stakeholders to initiate a national conversation on the use of substantial cost awards in politically sensitive litigation.

“Justice should never carry a price tag so frightening that it deters Nigerians from exercising one of their most sacred constitutional rights—the right to seek redress before a court of law,” HURIWA said.

The court's decision and the concerns raised by HURIWA may be subject to further judicial review through the appellate process. At the time of filing this report, there was no immediate response from the court or other parties mentioned in the statement regarding the issues raised by the association.

Update news