Nigeria’s electoral system faces a mounting crisis of public trust. The situation worsens as election petition verdicts arrive long after officials have assumed office, effectively making the judiciary—not the electorate—the final arbiter of election outcomes. This delay in justice threatens the legitimacy of elections and undermines democracy.
Former Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Attahiru Jega, recently raised the alarm over these flaws. Speaking during a June 12 Democracy Day event in Lagos, he criticized Nigeria’s electoral dispute resolution process as “slow and compromised.”
According to Jega, allowing election-related court cases to drag on for years—often beyond the tenure of the office in question—represents a grave injustice. He lamented, “A situation in which a pre-election matter can last three or four years before it is addressed, long after the wrongly sworn-in person has served out their term, is terrible.”
Legal Loopholes and Judicial Delays
Unfortunately, real-life cases confirm this concern. One clear example is a petition filed in 2011 by Victoria Ayeni against Olusola Sonuga and others over a seat in the Ogun State House of Assembly. Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court repeatedly delayed the case, ultimately rendering the litigation pointless after the four-year legislative term expired in 2015.
Similarly, following the March 9, 2019, Imo State governorship election, INEC initially declared Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner. He governed for several months until the Supreme Court overturned the result in January 2020, declaring Hope Uzodimma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) the rightful winner. Controversially, the court added results from 388 polling units and elevated Uzodimma from fourth place to governor—without publicly detailing the vote totals. The ruling sparked public outrage and fueled widespread accusations of judicial manipulation.
Constitutional Timeframes That Undermine Democracy
Currently, Section 285(6) of the 1999 Constitution mandates that election tribunals issue written judgments within 180 days of filing. Petitioners have only 21 days after the election result announcement to submit complaints, and appeals must conclude within 60 days of the tribunal’s decision. These timelines, though seemingly structured, ultimately prolong uncertainty and damage the public’s confidence in electoral outcomes.
Lessons From Kenya: Swift Justice Builds Credibility
Nigeria could learn from Kenya’s judicial approach to election petitions. The country’s 2010 Constitution, under Section 140(1), requires the Supreme Court to receive presidential election petitions within seven days of the result declaration. Furthermore, the court must issue a decision within 14 days of receiving the complaint.
During Kenya’s last presidential election on August 9, 2022, the court adhered strictly to this schedule. Judges resolved all legal challenges by September 5, allowing President William Ruto to take office on September 13. Despite intense political pressure, the judiciary acted swiftly and independently. Judges even avoided external communications to protect the integrity of their decisions.
This level of speed, discipline, and transparency significantly bolstered public confidence in Kenya’s electoral process and offers a model Nigeria should urgently emulate.
Proposals for Reform: Jega and the Uwais Report
Prof. Jega has proposed a transformative reform: mandate the resolution of all electoral disputes before the swearing-in of elected officials. This approach would ensure that only genuinely elected leaders take office, safeguarding democratic integrity.
Notably, this proposal also appears in the comprehensive 254-page report by the late Mohammed Uwais Electoral Reform Committee. Commissioned in August 2007 by former President Umaru Yar’Adua, the committee aimed to craft a system that could deliver free, fair, and credible elections. However, subsequent governments ignored its recommendations—an opportunity tragically squandered.
A Call to Action Amid Growing Voter Apathy
Nigerians continue to endure immense hardship to cast their votes, yet the judiciary too often nullifies their choices. This recurring pattern has bred voter apathy, frustration, and a loss of faith in democracy. Moreover, a litigation industry now thrives around elections, with lawyers and politicians treating courtrooms as the real battleground—rather than the ballot box.
The ongoing constitutional review presents a rare chance to correct these systemic flaws. Lawmakers must prioritize reforms that ensure election litigation concludes before officials are sworn in. Only by doing so can Nigeria begin to restore public trust in its electoral system.
Electoral Transparency: A Crucial Step Forward
In addition to legal reforms, Nigeria must enhance transparency in the collation and announcement of election results. Enforcing the mandatory electronic transmission of results will significantly reduce fraud and manipulation. This move would modernize the process, limit human interference, and help prevent post-election crises.
Ultimately, restoring faith in Nigeria’s democracy begins with guaranteeing that elections reflect the will of the people—not judicial verdicts delayed by technicalities. The future of Nigeria’s democratic journey hinges on bold reforms, political will, and respect for voters’ voices.
