Exposed: How a Nigerian Judge Tried to Rewrite a Party’s Case — And “Got Burned” by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decision in MAGAJI v. LADO & ORS (2023) LPELR-60463(SC) touches on a fundamental judicial principle — the duty of impartiality and the prohibition against judges descending into the arena of conflict. Justice Adamu Jauro, JSC, in delivering the lead judgment, gave a stern rebuke of judicial overreach, and here is a detailed analysis of the statement in focus:
“…making an unfounded assumption as the learned trial Judge did, reeks of descending into the arena of conflict, which our Judges have consistently been cautioned against. The Judge is the umpire and must not be seen to be conducting the cases for the parties or assisting them by filling any gaping holes in their cases…”
The Supreme Court restates the long-settled position that a judge must maintain neutrality and objectivity at all times. Like an umpire in a game, the judge is not a participant, nor a helper of either side.
When a judge makes assumptions not grounded in evidence or law, or begins to “fill in gaps” in a party’s case, they are abandoning their neutrality.
This conduct violates the adversarial nature of Nigeria’s legal system, where parties are expected to prove their cases based on pleadings and evidence.
The Supreme Court relied on the case of Sanmi v. State (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1690) 551 to reaffirm that judicial intervention must never tilt the balance unfairly.
The Supreme Court further relied on the cases of A.D.H. Ltd. v. Minister, F.C.T. (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 493 and Ossai v. Wakwah (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 969) 208
These cases serve as cautionary guides against judges overstepping into the evidentiary or advocative role.
The Court specifically condemned the trial judge’s “unfounded assumption” — which certainly refers to conclusions drawn by the trial court without evidentiary support.
Such assumptions amount to speculation, which courts have no legal right to engage in.
Judges must rely only on facts presented before them, not personal inference or hypothetical reasoning.
This principle is closely tied to the right to fair hearing — a party cannot be said to have received a fair trial if the judge is helping the other side or making leaps on their behalf.
This decision sends a clear warning to lower courts to:
(1) Avoid the temptation to “help” a poorly presented case, even if it appears meritorious.
(2) Do not infer or speculate beyond what is strictly established in pleadings or evidence.
Any step beyond that violates the doctrine of fair adjudication and renders the trial process biased or tainted.
Judges must hold the balance between litigants.
A judge who steps into the shoes of counsel or fills evidentiary gaps essentially abandons neutrality and risks reversal on appeal.
The decision strengthens the constitutional guarantee under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (Right to Fair Hearing).
Conclusion
In MAGAJI v. LADO (SUPRA), the Supreme Court reinforced a cornerstone of judicial ethics: a judge must be seen and must act as an impartial arbiter. Any conduct that suggests otherwise, including making assumptions or building a party’s case from the bench, is a violation of both procedural fairness and public trust.