Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: How the judiciary fared

After the fiercely contested 2023 general elections, about 1,200 petitions were filed in the courts challenging the outcome, which reveals the growing influence of the judiciary in Nigeria’s democratic journey. Although this development is not popular, as many observers question why final decisions of electoral outcome are arrived via the courts rather than the ballots, […]

After the fiercely contested 2023 general elections, about 1,200 petitions were filed in the courts challenging the outcome, which reveals the growing influence of the judiciary in Nigeria’s democratic journey.

Although this development is not popular, as many observers question why final decisions of electoral outcome are arrived via the courts rather than the ballots, others posit that it could be better imagined what could, indeed, have been if contestants had no avenues to ventilate their grievances.

So, the judiciary has ingrained itself in Nigeria’s democratic journey up until the last 26 years since the military restored power to the civilians. However, that confidence was hard in coming. The 1999 and 2003 elections did not witness much legal challenge.

The data showed that a high volume of petitions, about 1,282 were received on the 2007 elections.

The 2011 had 727 petitions, governorship, 53 from 24 states; 90 on senatorial seats; 206 on House of Representatives seats, and 377 on state assembly elections.

After the 2015 general elections, a total of 663 petitions were filed in courts, of which 41 were on governorship from 24 states, 81 on senatorial seats, 175 on House of Representatives seats, and 366 on House of Assembly seats.

In 2019, 807 petitions were filed of which 66 were on governorship in 26 states, 107 on senatorial seats, 207 on House of Representatives seats, and 417 on House of Assembly elections.

The judiciary has engaged and contributed to Nigeria’s democracy through the various court outlets like magistrate courts, area courts, Sharia courts, high courts, the National Industrial Court, Code of Conduct Tribunal, Election Petitions Tribunals, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and other specialized courts like the Investment and Securities Tribunal and Disciplinary Tribunals of Regulatory Bodies for various professionals.

Corruption allegations, controversial verdicts

Judiciary’s intervention in Nigeria’s electoral democracy has not been without its pitfalls, which have created the persistent suspicion of corruption in the institution.

During his valedictory speech in October 2023, former Supreme Court justice, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, pointed at the rot in the judiciary including lack of financial independence, inadequate number of judicial officers, and controversial verdicts, which negatively affected the image of the judiciary.

The retiring jurist alluded to the cases of Governor Hope Uzodimma of Imo State, who was announced winner of the 2019 governorship election despite coming fourth; that of former Senate President Ahmad Lawan and former Governor of Akwa Ibom State Godswill Akpabio, who did not participate in the initial senatorial primaries of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the states, having opted to run for of the office of the president and lost, but were returned as the validly nominated candidates by the Supreme Court.

With their return, the Supreme Court displaced Bashir Machina, a local politician in Lawan’s Yobe constituency, who won the senatorial ticket, and Udom Ekpoudom from the Akwa Ibom North-West senatorial zone respectively.

On this, Justice Dattijo Muhammad said: “At the Court of Appeal, it is also asserted; presiding justices are now being appointed out of turn. And there is the further issue of the unpredictable nature of recent decisions of the courts as well. A number of respected senior members of the bar inter alia, citing the Ahmed Lawan, the former President of the Senate and the Imo Governorship appeal, claim that decisions of even the apex court have become unpredictable. It is difficult to understand how and where, by these decisions, the judicial pendulum swings. It was not so before, they contend.

“In some quarters, the view is strongly held that filth and intrigues characterise the institution these days! Judges are said to be comfortable in companies they never would have kept in the past. It is being insinuated that some judicial officers even campaign for the politicians. It cannot be more damnifying!”

Although the public has criticised the judiciary for the verdicts against the democratic process such as the FCT High Court’s Justice Bassey Ikpeme’s late-night injunction on June 11, 1993 directing the then National Electoral Commission (NEC) not to conduct the presidential polls scheduled for the following day, which gave impetus to the eventual annulment of the election of June 12, believed to have been won by Moshood Abiola, by the then military government of General Ibrahim Babangida, the succeeding pronouncements did not leave good test in the mouth either.

For instance, the verdicts on the 2007 presidential election in favour of Umar’ Musa Yar Adua against Muhammadu Buhari, that of 2019 against Atiku Abubakar in favour of Buhari and that of 2023 in favour Bola Tinubu against Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi were all criticised by the public for departing from what was thought to be the electoral rules. Indeed, the late President Umar Yar Adua later admitted in a nationwide broadcast that his election was flawed and committed to electoral reforms.

Celebrated verdicts

However, it is not all about gloom as the judiciary had delivered some impressive verdicts restoring stolen mandates of elected governors. Among these are: Peter Obi of APGA, Anambra State, March, 2006; Adams Oshiomhole of ACN, Edo State, November, 2008; Rahman Olusegun Mimiko of Labour Party, Ondo State, February, 2009; Kayode Fayemi of ACN, Ekiti State, October, 2010; Ra’uf Aregbesola of ACN, Osun State, November, 2010.

Further, the judgment of the Supreme Court, which in 2020 affirmed the right of females to inherit family property in parts of Igboland against an age-long custom, as one of the major decisions of the judiciary, the verdict on the local government financial autonomy, the verdict on state of emergency, are all landmark.

Judiciary must do more to redeem itself

In all, experts believe that the ability of the judiciary to provide affordable and accessible, deliver substantial justice, shooting down laws that are repugnant to natural justice, and interpreting the constitution fairly and clearly, is key to the survival of democracy in the country.

Prof Abdullahi Shehu Zuru, who teaches at Nile University, Abuja, said the role of judicial in every state craft is to strengthen and redeem the faltering institutions of accountability.

“As to whether the Nigerian judiciary has lived up to its constitutional mandate under the current democratic dispensation, referencing the court of public opinion, it is impossible not to concede the fact that, there is so much to be desired.

“The judiciary must recalibrate in order to meet the emerging challenges of administration of justice.

“Looking ahead to 2027 general elections, once again, the role of the judiciary in enforcing the sanctity and justice of our electoral system will be on trial.

“As for the predictions on how it will perform in the face of desperate legitimate public expectations, the jury is still out.”

Similarly, Ikoro N. Ikoro Esq, an Abuja-based lawyer, said that although the judiciary is doing its best to strengthen the economy, there are some bad eggs, which the National Judicial Council (NJC) should do its best in investigating petitions against judges by aggrieved individuals who have proof.

He also noted that lawyers, who file motions on the day of the case, seek adjournments, and take things to the judges to influence must hold themselves accountable for the negative perception of the judiciary.

“It is a two-edged sword as even based on what you have observed, a lot of people have very negative perception of the judiciary and the reason for this is because we are in an era where the social media is everywhere. When a judge passes a judgement, you start looking who the judge is close to and things like that,” he said.

He also pointed to the social media litigation of the Senator Lawan and Machina case, which he said was about “the allegation of forgery which cannot be commenced by originating summons as he did and that was what the Supreme Court held there.”

“So, when we follow social media sometimes, we can have very wrong perception about the judiciary.

“The question is, has the judiciary helped the Nigerian democracy. There are some judgements that when we look at them that, like in respect of election petitions, electronic voting and all these. If you look at it critically, you can see that it is because of the position the judiciary had taken that there is now an attempt for Nigeria to do electronic voting. The way voting happens in the US when they are releasing results you are watching it live on CNN, Fox News. So, Nigeria knows that there is a problem.

“Not clapping for the judiciary, I am only saying that some of the wrong perception is because of the social media judgements when they have not even read the facts of the case.

“It will shock some people, when you read the facts of the Uzodimma and Ihedioha case, that what they are even alleging on the number of accredited voters were less than that of Uzodimma, if you read the judgement, you can see that things are different.”