Nigerian courts and election tribunals have faced intense pressure and scrutiny over their management of electoral disputes, from pre-election cases to post-election petitions. Each election cycle in- creases this pressure, leading to calls for reforms in the electoral process and urging that the people, not the courts, should be the sole arbiters of electoral choices and mandates.
With another general election approaching, it is important to ask: Are there alternative models of electoral dispute resolution that can protect the courts and tribunals from accusations of bias? Can our electoral process be developed so that political parties, aspirants, and candidates resolve disputes internally, allowing the courts to focus on their core constitutional role, as outlined in Section 6 of the Constitution?
Alternatively, can the electoral management body, political parties, candidates, security agencies, and other stakeholders recommit to fair and transparent elections—elections that cause minimal disputes requiring judicial intervention? And can the courts and tribunals assert jurisdiction over disputes if no petitions are filed? Jurisprudentially, courts are regarded as the guardians of the constitution.
They act as a buffer between the people and the government, ensuring that rights guaranteed by the constitution are not unjustifiably violated. This duty has been central to Nigeria’s democratic journey. Part of this journey is the recognition that sovereignty resides with the people, who express their will through ballot in constitutionally organised elections.
This principle is enshrined in Section 14 of the Constitution, which affirms that Nigeria shall be a state founded on the principles of democracy and social justice, with sovereignty belonging to the people, from whom the government derives its authority. Importantly, the courts and election tribunals do not vote during elections.
The courts remain inactive before elections and focus on their primary constitutional duties. They are not involved in deciding the membership, management, or organisation of political parties. These are matters for the internal affairs of the parties. Voting is carried out by registered voters who undergo accreditation and cast their ballots in a le- gitimate, well-organised election.
The electoral management body ensures a transparent process where votes are accurately count- ed, recorded, and announced at designated collation centres. Cer- tificates of Return are then issued to the rightful winners, who are sworn in as duly elected represen- tatives. Political Parties and the Source of Pre-Election Disputes So, how do courts and tribunals become involved in electoral disputes? In Nigeria,
Section 221 of the Constitution states that no association other than a political party shall campaign for votes for any candidate. It also stipulates that no association other than a political party shall contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate at an election. The Constitution does not allow independent candidacy.
Candidates must belong to a political party that sponsors them. These parties choose their candidates through direct primaries, indirect primaries, or consensus arrangements. Ideally, the selected candidates should meet constitutional qualifications and satisfy all conditions for appearing on the ballot. However, in reality, many political parties fail to organise trans- parent primaries. In some cases, candidates who did not take part in the process are imposed on the party. Some parties also conduct
sham screening exercises and endorse individuals who are not legally qualified to practice. Occasionally, the electoral management body excludes duly nominated candidates, either by mistake or intention.
Where, then, should aggrieved aspirants seek redress? Sections 285 of the Constitution and 29 of the Electoral Act, 2022, define pre-election matters and specify that such disputes must be filed before the Federal High Court. These issues are expected to be re- solved prior to the general election.
Before amendments to these provisions, there was an overlap between pre- and post-election disputes, resulting in legal uncertainty. Additionally, the jurisdictional reach of various divisions of the High Court enabled forum shop- ping, where parties filed cases in distant states to obtain favourable judgments.
For example, a High Court in Jigawa might hear a case concerning primaries conducted in Anambra. Although the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-election matters, parties and candidates continue to exploit legal loopholes, claiming that cases can be filed in any division of the court nationwide.
This creates constitutional and legal challenges for the electoral management body and some political parties. Some courts assert jurisdiction forcefully, disregarding the geographical and subject matter limitations.
The role and necessity of election tribunals
Considering the complexity of Nigeria’s electoral landscape and the numerous constituencies involved, election petition tribunals are both necessary and prudent.
But why are these tribunals essential, given that elections take place at polling units and results are declared at the constituency level? In practice, political parties and their candidates often create hostile environments that obstruct voters from accessing polling stations. Elections are sometimes affected by poor organisation, voter intimidation, ballot box snatching, and vote falsification.
Occasionally, individuals who neither participated in nor won elections are declared winners. In such cases, courts and tribunals are the only viable avenues for redress. Denying aggrieved candidates’ access to redress may lead to unconstitutional and illegal methods of contesting results.
Alternative dispute resolution and need for reform
Political cases are seldom suitable for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. They are usually emotionally charged and highly provocative, with each party convinced of its right to victory. The best way to protect the judiciary from accusations of bias is for political parties to embrace internal democracy and for their leaders to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the rule of law and due process.
Similarly, the electoral management body must organise elections strictly in accordance with the law. The establishment of a Political Parties Regulatory and Electoral Offences Commission could significantly enhance the oversight of party primaries and the prosecution of electoral offenders. When parties, aspirants, and candidates realise that electoral misconduct has real consequences, they may be more cautious in breaking the law.
Strengthening democracy and restoring public trust
Ultimately, political parties, aspirants, candidates, and their supporters must actively work to reduce the tension, fear, and violence that currently afflict Nigeria’s electoral process. The courts and tribunals should only be approached for the resolution of genuine, constitutionally significant disputes.
These institutions must handle such cases with integrity, thereby reinforcing public confidence in judicial intervention. Frivolous petitions and those who support or encourage them must be penalised. Judicial officers who wilfully ignore legal precedent or misuse their authority must also face sanctions.
Upholding judicial ethics and constitutional principles is nonnegotiable. Nigerians must not lose faith in the electoral process or in the capacity and independence of the judiciary to deliver justice. If this faith continues to diminish, the very foundation of our democracy could be at risk.
