INTRODUCTION
In the intricate operation of democracy, the tripartite structure of government – Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary – forms the bedrock of governance. Picture it as a three-legged stool: take one leg away, and the whole construct topples. These branches, while distinct in function, are interwoven through a symphony of checks and balances that maintain harmony within the democratic framework (Baron de Montesquieu, 1748). Of these, the Judiciary often dons the hat of the umpire, standing as the guardian of legality and the enforcer of the rule of law. It is the referee in the grand game of politics, wielding its gavel to ensure fair play between feuding parties.
But what happens when the referee is accused of stepping onto the field of play, or worse, scoring the winning goal? That is where the Judiciary’s role in electoral disputes comes into the spotlight, a topic as contentious as it is crucial. Elections, the pulsating heart of representative democracy, are the grand showcase of the people’s will (Abraham Lincoln, 19th November, 1863, at his Gettysburg Declaration). They are the modern manifestation of the social contract, where citizens temporarily and voluntarily entrust some of their natural rights and freedom to governing authority in exchange for protection, security and social order. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679); John Locke (1632-1704); Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1777); Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804); and John Rawls (1921-2002); are the greatest thinkers in this area. The electoral process is, therefore, a sanctum of democratic expression, and any disruptions or disputes within it demand scrupulous resolution.
Enter the Judiciary, whose mandate extends to arbitrating these disputes. On the one hand, its role is clear: ensuring that electoral outcomes adhere to the principles of legality, fairness, and procedural integrity. On the other hand, critics argue that judicial intervention, particularly in highly contentious or politically charged elections, risks overstepping boundaries and eroding public trust in democratic institutions. It’s a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Historically, the Judiciary’s involvement in electoral matters has been both lauded and disparaged. Advocates of judicial oversight argue that without an impartial arbiter, the chaos of contested elections could spiral into anarchy. They see the courts as the ultimate protectors of democratic values, stepping in to rectify injustices and uphold the sanctity of the vote. Objectors, however, raise concerns about judicial overreach, warning that the courts might inadvertently wield power that tips the scales of democracy. They fear a judiciary that becomes a kingmaker rather than a law interpreter, thus destabilizing the delicate equilibrium of governance.
Consider landmark cases such as Bush v. Gore (531 U.S. 98 (2000)) in the United States or similar judicial interventions in other democracies where electoral disputes have required legal adjudication. Also in view is that of Trump v. Biden (141 S.Ct. 1387 – 2021). These instances show the razor-thin line the Judiciary must tread. On one side lies its duty to enforce the law and ensure electoral fairness; on the other, the risk of undermining its own impartiality by appearing to align with partisan outcomes. The stakes are monumental, as the Judiciary’s rulings in these cases often set precedents that ripple through the legal and political landscapes for years.
Furthermore, the Judiciary’s involvement in electoral matters often sparks a broader philosophical debate: Does the intervention reflect the will of the people, or does it substitute judicial judgment for popular sovereignty? This question strikes at the core of democratic theory and the Judiciary’s role within it. When the courts step in to resolve disputes, are they amplifying the people’s voice by ensuring fair representation, or are they muffling it by overriding the collective verdict obtained through the ballot? This is where my syllogism, OZEKPEDIA, comes in, describing our electoral system as subjections itself to JUDOCRACY (a form of government where presidents, governors, Senators, House of Representatives members, House of Assembly members, chairmen of local government, Councilors, etc., are incubated, midwifed and delivered in the hallowed courts of law rather than through the ballot box) .
In examining these tensions, one must also consider the global variations in how judicial systems handle electoral disputes. Some democracies have robust legal frameworks explicitly designed for such cases, while others operate in more ambiguous territory, leaving room for accusations of bias or inconsistency. Regardless of the system, the fundamental challenge remains the same: balancing the Judiciary’s role as an impartial adjudicator with its impact on the democratic process.
Ultimately, the Judiciary’s involvement in electoral disputes is both a testament to and a test of its integrity. It highlights the paradox of democracy: a system that thrives on the people’s will, yet relies on institutional safeguards to protect it from itself. While the Judiciary’s role in this domain may be fraught with complexity and controversy, its importance in preserving the rule of law and upholding democratic principles cannot be overstated. The gavel, after all, may be mightier than the ballot or at least equally essential in ensuring its legitimacy.
The Judiciary as Guardians of Democracy in Resolving Electoral Disputes in Nigeria
The Judiciary’s role in the resolution of electoral disputes is to safeguard the integrity, fairness, and legality of electoral processes by interpreting and applying electoral laws to address conflicts that emerge during or following elections. This crucial function not only upholds the rule of law but also reinforces public confidence in the democratic process, providing a sense of order and justice when tensions run high. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria perspicuously states in section 6(6) deals with the judicial powers of the Federation and the States. It also defines the jurisdiction of courts in relation to civil rights and obligations.
The Judicial Powers of the Courts
The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section –
(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law;
(b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person;” (Constitution Of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 section 6 (6)).
The Judiciary’s authority extends broadly to all powers and sanctions that are inherently part of a court of law. This suggests that courts are empowered to exercise all their traditional functions and prerogatives as recognized by legal precedent and common law, even if other provisions of the Constitution suggest limitations or exceptions.
Superior and Inferior Courts in Nigeria
In Nigeria, the judicial system is structured into inferior and superior courts in acordance with section 6(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (ibid) . The implication of this structure is that superior courts possess inherent powers, whereas inferior courts do not. The jurisdiction of inferior courts is restricted in terms of both the types of cases they are authorized to adjudicate and the remedies they are permitted to grant. Inferior courts may be established under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) or through legislative acts enacted by the National Assembly or the State Houses of Assembly.
Election Tribunals like the Bat
However, election tribunals in Nigeria occupy a distinct judicial status, as they are neither classified as superior nor inferior courts. Instead, they possess both original and appellate jurisdiction in the adjudication of election petitions. These tribunals are empowered to hear and determine election petitions filed directly before them, addressing disputes related to the legality, outcomes, and conduct of elections. Furthermore, they are vested with the authority to review appeals arising from decisions rendered by subordinate courts or administrative bodies on electoral matters, enabling a higher-level examination and reassessment of such decisions.
Scope of Jurisdiction on Electoral Matters
Election petitions are adjudicated by election Tribunals or Courts that are vested with the authority to hear and decide cases within their jurisdictional limits. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (CFRN), along with the Electoral Act 2022, currently establish these tribunals and courts for the resolution of electoral disputes. These include:
a)The National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunals for each state of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) are empowered to hear and determine petitions relating to National Assembly and State House of Assembly elections. (Ibid Section 285(1)).
b)The Governorship Election Tribunal is vested with the authority to adjudicate petitions concerning governorship elections. (Ibid Section 285(2)).
c)The Court of Appeal holds jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions related to presidential elections. (Ibid Section 239(1)).
d)The Area Council Election Tribunal is tasked with resolving disputes pertaining to elections for the offices of Chairman and Councilors within the FCT . (Electoral Act 2022 Section 131 (1)).
Application Of The Rule Of Law In Electoral Matters
The rule of law fundamentally denotes the dominance of legal principles. Put differently, it signifies that all entities and individuals within a state must be subordinate to the law, and no one, regardless of status, is exempt from compliance with the state’s laws. Essentially, it acts as a constraint on the exercise of governmental authority. This doctrine, which has become a fundamental principle in all constitutional democracies, derives its vitality solely from the Judiciary through the process of adjudicating disputes. The ratio decidendi of a case serves as the tangible and explicit expression of the rule of law. When courts resolve disputes by applying legal principles, the parties involved are effectively subjected to the rule of law, as they are obliged to accept the court’s judgment. As Lord Moulton aptly notes, “…the measure of a civilization is the degree of its obedience to the unenforceable.” Thus, the significance of the rule of law in the electoral process and related disputes cannot be overstated. (To be continued).
Thought for the week
All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary”.
–Andrew Jackson.