Nigeria is not the only country where aggrieved aspirants and candidates in elections seek legal redress. Some nations submit their electoral disputes to regular courts, while others assign them to constitutional courts.
Still, some operate a hybrid system where both regular courts and Election Petitions Tribunals handle election disagreements. In Nigeria, discussions about preelection litigation and post-election issues are now seen as sinister and unusual, having no place in a constitutional democracy.
The standard view is that, despite the challenges during an election, the electorate should decide the winners and losers. While this position is constitution- ally and legally sound and aligns with democratic values, it does not explore why aggrieved candidates turn to the courts or why it benefits democracy for them to raise their grievances there.
In making this argument, attention must be given to the misconduct of a small minority within the judiciary who corrupt the pursuit of justice for personal, familial, or other benefits. Some supporters and advocates of dismissive courtroom democracy conveniently shield the political elite from the challenges and controversies of the electoral process.
This is quite unfortunate but understandable. They consistently focus all attention on the electoral management body and the courts, as if the entire problem of our electoral process rests solely and squarely with these two institutions. The courts and the electoral management body lack their own media outlets and cannot compete in the media and digital landscape.
Critics of the electoral process have their own influencers and media teams, promoting the narratives they want regarding the issues surrounding the electoral process. In this, they are the aggrieved individuals, and everyone else is seen as an enabler of electoral malfeasance.
But the issues in our electoral process are straightforward, and Nigerians can address the problems and challenges through honest discourse and analysis. In this discussion, some issues are accepted as given and not disputed. The first is that, in our form of democracy, registered voters who face no impediments have the right to elect those who will hold executive and legislative positions, as outlined in the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022.
This is the voters’ power, and they do not share it with any individual or organisation. However, the constitution and laws empower an institution to organise, conduct, and supervise the elections recognised in the constitution and law, which is where the electoral management body comes in.
This body is also responsible for registering political parties in accordance with the conditions set out in the constitution and law, and for establishing the mechanisms for their operation. These parties act as entities that manage their own affairs and operate based on their principles and ideologies.
Those who share the principles and ideologies of the parties join and submit to their authority. During elections, parties invite members to express interest in contesting for positions outlined in the constitution and law, screen prospective aspirants, and decide who will proceed to contest in the primaries.
They also establish conditions for their primaries, whether opting for direct or indirect methods of settling for the consensus option. If parties adhere to the principles of internal party democracy, they will not face legal challenges, and aspirants or candidates will not resort to courts.
Unfortunately, some parties are adept at manipulating internal processes and appointing candidates who did not contest primaries or show interest as aspirants.
Sometimes, party members are sidelined and rarely participate in party activities or the selection of candidates for various roles. These issues often lead to legal disputes. Nevertheless, courts remain largely inactive, mainly dealing with other societal issues. It is aspirants, parties,
and candidates who initiate pre-election litigation, as they submit their disputes to the courts. The courts do not act independently; it is these individuals and groups who seek redress, and the courts are expected to act impartially in the best interest of Nigerian democracy.
The courts base their decisions on concrete evidence and established legal principles, not rumours or gossip. To bring a case before the courts, an individual must have the legal standing to sue, and the court must have the appropriate jurisdiction.
When joining a party, you do so as an individual and retain the fundamental right to leave at any time. You may choose to go if the party becomes authoritarian or undemocratic, if you are dissatisfied with the candidate selection process, or if the party shifts from a conservative to a progressive ideology, or vice versa.
When you approach the courts, a favourable judgement is not assured. You might have a strong case, but the court may lack jurisdiction, or you may be unable to gather the necessary evidence. You might have a valid claim, but lack the standing to sue.
The courts may also decide that your issues are internal matters of the party and decline to intervene. When you lose, democracy becomes a matter of liti- gation in courts; when you win, the courts serve as the last hope for the ordinary person. Cynicism towards the courts is more apparent in post-election petitions, which are filed after elections. Sometimes, the environment during elections becomes toxic, making it difficult for the electoral management body to operate effectively. Desperate politicians and parties may compromise election staff, hijack ballot boxes and papers, alter results, manipulate outcomes, and commit unlawful acts that threaten the integrity of the ballot.
In such circumstances, where should aggrieved parties and candidates turn? Naturally, voters are pre- vented from voting for their preferred candidates. Judicial officers are not present at polling stations, and credible evidence must be provided to prove that voters were denied their right to vote.
If you claim that ballot papers have been hijacked, results sheets switched, or destroyed, you must prove this to the tribunals. When a candidate sneaks in and ostensibly wins an election with a forged certificate, proof that the certificate is fraudulent is still required. As with pre-election matters, the Election Tribunals are generally inactive and require initiation.
Being a petitioner does not guarantee victory; the tribunal may order a supplementary or re-run election. Sometimes, the tribunal will direct the Commission to declare a winner in accordance with the law and constitution, or it may recalculate results and declare a winner.
In its report: ‘From Ballot to the Court Room,’ the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre found that a common feature in petitions challenging the 2023 general election outcome was the high number of cases failing mainly due to lack of jurisdiction—a fundamental requirement for hearing petitions—and failure to meet the burden of proof. At the Election Petition Tribunal, 88.9% of analysed cases were unsuccessful, with only 11.1% succeeding.
At the Court of Appeal, 79.4% of appeals failed, while 20.9% were successful. The report highlights that the higher success rate of 20.9% should not be interpreted as more petitions succeeding at the Court of Appeal, since some appeals filed by respondents, whose re- turn or victory was overturned by the tribunal, were decided in their favour against the petitioner.
The reasons for dismissing petitions include: failure of the petitioner to dis- charge the burden of proof, meaning their inability to prove the case with credible and admissible evidence, which accounts for about 73.1% of cases; failure to adhere to court procedures and rules, such as filing out of time, not following the prescribed format, or omitting critical details and documents (14.7%); petitions involving pre-election matters outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (8.5%); and lack of Locus Standi, mainly because the petitioner did not fully participate in all election stages or is legally barred from filing an election petition (3.7%).
It is therefore incorrect to conclude that, because of discomfort in some cases and our inability to understand the reasoning behind their decisions, we can confidently assert that our democracy is governed by the courts and not by the voters. While voters must remain the ultimate authority, courts and tribunals should intervene in certain situations to correct anomalies and uphold the sovereign right of the people to make free choices.
Still, some operate a hybrid system where both regular courts and Election Petitions Tribunals handle election disagreements. In Nigeria, discussions about preelection litigation and post-election issues are now seen as sinister and unusual, having no place in a constitutional democracy.
The standard view is that, despite the challenges during an election, the electorate should decide the winners and losers. While this position is constitution- ally and legally sound and aligns with democratic values, it does not explore why aggrieved candidates turn to the courts or why it benefits democracy for them to raise their grievances there.
In making this argument, attention must be given to the misconduct of a small minority within the judiciary who corrupt the pursuit of justice for personal, familial, or other benefits. Some supporters and advocates of dismissive courtroom democracy conveniently shield the political elite from the challenges and controversies of the electoral process.
This is quite unfortunate but understandable. They consistently focus all attention on the electoral management body and the courts, as if the entire problem of our electoral process rests solely and squarely with these two institutions. The courts and the electoral management body lack their own media outlets and cannot compete in the media and digital landscape.
Critics of the electoral process have their own influencers and media teams, promoting the narratives they want regarding the issues surrounding the electoral process. In this, they are the aggrieved individuals, and everyone else is seen as an enabler of electoral malfeasance.
But the issues in our electoral process are straightforward, and Nigerians can address the problems and challenges through honest discourse and analysis. In this discussion, some issues are accepted as given and not disputed. The first is that, in our form of democracy, registered voters who face no impediments have the right to elect those who will hold executive and legislative positions, as outlined in the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022.
This is the voters’ power, and they do not share it with any individual or organisation. However, the constitution and laws empower an institution to organise, conduct, and supervise the elections recognised in the constitution and law, which is where the electoral management body comes in.
This body is also responsible for registering political parties in accordance with the conditions set out in the constitution and law, and for establishing the mechanisms for their operation. These parties act as entities that manage their own affairs and operate based on their principles and ideologies.
Those who share the principles and ideologies of the parties join and submit to their authority. During elections, parties invite members to express interest in contesting for positions outlined in the constitution and law, screen prospective aspirants, and decide who will proceed to contest in the primaries.
They also establish conditions for their primaries, whether opting for direct or indirect methods of settling for the consensus option. If parties adhere to the principles of internal party democracy, they will not face legal challenges, and aspirants or candidates will not resort to courts.
Unfortunately, some parties are adept at manipulating internal processes and appointing candidates who did not contest primaries or show interest as aspirants.
Sometimes, party members are sidelined and rarely participate in party activities or the selection of candidates for various roles. These issues often lead to legal disputes. Nevertheless, courts remain largely inactive, mainly dealing with other societal issues. It is aspirants, parties,
and candidates who initiate pre-election litigation, as they submit their disputes to the courts. The courts do not act independently; it is these individuals and groups who seek redress, and the courts are expected to act impartially in the best interest of Nigerian democracy.
The courts base their decisions on concrete evidence and established legal principles, not rumours or gossip. To bring a case before the courts, an individual must have the legal standing to sue, and the court must have the appropriate jurisdiction.
When joining a party, you do so as an individual and retain the fundamental right to leave at any time. You may choose to go if the party becomes authoritarian or undemocratic, if you are dissatisfied with the candidate selection process, or if the party shifts from a conservative to a progressive ideology, or vice versa.
When you approach the courts, a favourable judgement is not assured. You might have a strong case, but the court may lack jurisdiction, or you may be unable to gather the necessary evidence. You might have a valid claim, but lack the standing to sue.
The courts may also decide that your issues are internal matters of the party and decline to intervene. When you lose, democracy becomes a matter of liti- gation in courts; when you win, the courts serve as the last hope for the ordinary person. Cynicism towards the courts is more apparent in post-election petitions, which are filed after elections. Sometimes, the environment during elections becomes toxic, making it difficult for the electoral management body to operate effectively. Desperate politicians and parties may compromise election staff, hijack ballot boxes and papers, alter results, manipulate outcomes, and commit unlawful acts that threaten the integrity of the ballot.
In such circumstances, where should aggrieved parties and candidates turn? Naturally, voters are pre- vented from voting for their preferred candidates. Judicial officers are not present at polling stations, and credible evidence must be provided to prove that voters were denied their right to vote.
If you claim that ballot papers have been hijacked, results sheets switched, or destroyed, you must prove this to the tribunals. When a candidate sneaks in and ostensibly wins an election with a forged certificate, proof that the certificate is fraudulent is still required. As with pre-election matters, the Election Tribunals are generally inactive and require initiation.
Being a petitioner does not guarantee victory; the tribunal may order a supplementary or re-run election. Sometimes, the tribunal will direct the Commission to declare a winner in accordance with the law and constitution, or it may recalculate results and declare a winner.
In its report: ‘From Ballot to the Court Room,’ the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre found that a common feature in petitions challenging the 2023 general election outcome was the high number of cases failing mainly due to lack of jurisdiction—a fundamental requirement for hearing petitions—and failure to meet the burden of proof. At the Election Petition Tribunal, 88.9% of analysed cases were unsuccessful, with only 11.1% succeeding.
At the Court of Appeal, 79.4% of appeals failed, while 20.9% were successful. The report highlights that the higher success rate of 20.9% should not be interpreted as more petitions succeeding at the Court of Appeal, since some appeals filed by respondents, whose re- turn or victory was overturned by the tribunal, were decided in their favour against the petitioner.
The reasons for dismissing petitions include: failure of the petitioner to dis- charge the burden of proof, meaning their inability to prove the case with credible and admissible evidence, which accounts for about 73.1% of cases; failure to adhere to court procedures and rules, such as filing out of time, not following the prescribed format, or omitting critical details and documents (14.7%); petitions involving pre-election matters outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (8.5%); and lack of Locus Standi, mainly because the petitioner did not fully participate in all election stages or is legally barred from filing an election petition (3.7%).
It is therefore incorrect to conclude that, because of discomfort in some cases and our inability to understand the reasoning behind their decisions, we can confidently assert that our democracy is governed by the courts and not by the voters. While voters must remain the ultimate authority, courts and tribunals should intervene in certain situations to correct anomalies and uphold the sovereign right of the people to make free choices.
