Politicians, judiciary, judicialisation of the polity as threat to Nigerian democracy

The judiciary is often described as the last hope of the common man. Whenever disputes arise, citizens turn to the courts for redress. When the powerful seeks to oppress the weak, the latter finds refuge in the temple of justice. This enduring faith in the judiciary rests on the expectation that judges will dispense justice with integrity, impartiality, and fidelity to the law.

As the arbiter of disputes, the judiciary is expected to stand above partisan interests, ensuring that justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to be done. Once public confidence in the courts begins to erode, the rule of law is endangered and democracy itself is placed on shaky ground as the strength of a democracy is measured not by the power of those who seek justice, but by the independence and credibility of the institutions that dispense it.

Recent developments, however, have cast a troubling shadow over the judiciary. As Nigeria approaches another electoral cycle, a series of controversial judicial pronouncements on political matters have placed the courts under intense public scrutiny. Increasingly, politicians appear to be using the judiciary as a political weapon to achieve what they could not secure through democratic competition.

Today, many politicians seem more committed to preparing legal battles than preparing for elections, governance, or service to the people. Political contests that should be settled through campaigns, persuasion, and the ballot box are increasingly being transferred to courtrooms. This growing judicialisation of politics threatens democratic stability by subjecting political processes to judicial determinations, often amid widespread concerns about the perception of judicial independence.

Indeed, there are growing fears that the courts may one day be manipulated to obstruct electoral processes or even derail democratic transitions altogether. A recent example is the judgment of a Federal High Court in Abuja directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister certain political parties, including the opposition coalition platform, the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The court held that the affected parties had failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and should therefore be excluded from the 2027 general election.

While the Constitution empowers INEC to deregister political parties that fail to meet stipulated requirements, the electoral commission requires neither prompting nor compulsion from any individual or court to exercise powers expressly vested in it by law. Seeking judicial intervention in such a matter, particularly at a politically sensitive moment, raises legitimate questions about motive and timing.

The controversy surrounding that judgment followed another contentious legal battle involving the ADC. Earlier, the Court of Appeal directed parties in a leadership dispute within the party to maintain the status quo pending determination of the case. The dispute arose after a former Deputy National Chairman of the ADC, Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenged the constitution of a caretaker committee established after opposition figures adopted the party as a coalition platform.

INEC interpreted the appellate court’s order to mean that the ADC lacked a recognised leadership structure. However, the Supreme Court subsequently set aside that interpretation and directed that the matter be returned to the Federal High Court for accelerated hearing. The conflicting interpretations and judicial interventions further deepened public concerns about the growing influence of the courts in political affairs.

The increasing tendency of politicians to drag every political disagreement before the judiciary risks undermining both the courts and the democratic process. The judiciary becomes vulnerable to accusations of partisanship, while voters are left in prolonged uncertainty. More dangerously, democracy itself may become a casualty.

Nigeria’s history offers sobering lessons. The annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election remains one of the darkest chapters in the nation’s democratic journey. Although the annulment was fundamentally a political decision, judicial interventions surrounding the crisis contributed to uncertainty, instability, and widespread public disillusionment. More than three decades later, the scars remain.

The country has also witnessed several controversial judicial outcomes in which individuals who neither won elections nor appeared on ballots ultimately occupied public offices through court rulings. While such decisions may be defensible on legal grounds, they often leave citizens questioning whether electoral outcomes are determined by voters or by judges.

The courts must remain available for genuine grievances and constitutional disputes. They must never become instruments of political blackmail, personal vendetta, or desperate attempts to overturn the wishes of party members or the electorate. Judges are custodians of justice, not participants in political competition. Their duty is to preserve constitutional order, not to determine political destinies.

Judicial restraint is therefore an indispensable democratic virtue. Courts must intervene where laws have been violated, constitutional provisions breached, or electoral fraud established. At the same time, they must remain conscious of preserving the sanctity of the ballot and respecting the sovereignty of the people.

Equally troubling is the growing tendency among politicians to seek judicial shortcuts to political power. Rather than investing in grassroots mobilisation, internal democracy, sound policies, and voter engagement, many now view litigation as a parallel route to victory. This habit weakens political institutions and diminishes public confidence in elections.

Political actors must resist the temptation to litigate every disagreement. Democracy flourishes when elections are won through persuasion, organisation, and popular support and not through endless courtroom battles.

A nation in which politicians routinely run to court after every political contest is not strengthening democracy; it is weakening it. The sooner Nigeria’s political class recognises this reality, the healthier and more stable the nation’s democracy will become. The judiciary has a sacred responsibility to safeguard democratic integrity. Any judgment capable of disenfranchising citizens, undermining public confidence in elections, or creating unnecessary political instability must be approached with utmost caution.

Misinterpretations of the law or reliance on questionable technicalities can damage not only democratic institutions but also the credibility of the judiciary itself. This is not a call for judges to abandon the law. Rather, it is a call for judicial officers to recognise that justice is not merely a matter of legal technicality, but also a matter of democratic legitimacy. The law exists to serve the people and protect their sovereign will. The law is not to frustrate it.

As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general election, the judiciary will face one of its most significant tests. The courts will play a defining role in determining whether democracy is strengthened or weakened. Judges, therefore, must resist pressure from powerful interests and avoid rulings that create constitutional confusion or appear to disregard the will of the electorate.

History teaches that democracies thrive when institutions operate within their constitutional limits and when the mandate of the people is respected. Whenever judicial decisions are perceived as overriding popular will, public trust suffers. No democracy can endure if citizens begin to believe that their votes matter less than legal technicalities.

The ballot remains the cornerstone of democratic legitimacy. Every institution, including the judiciary, must protect it. Judges must remember that their decisions will ultimately be judged not only by legal scholars but also by history. Their rulings will be measured by their contribution to democratic stability, national unity, constitutional order, and the preservation of the people’s sovereign will.

When court rulings begin to threaten democracy, democracy itself is placed on trial. Therefore,  the judiciary must never become a theatre for political engineering. It must remain what it was intended to be: the impartial temple of justice.