To remain the final arbiter of electoral outcomes, the judiciary must remain acutely aware of its influence on preserving the integrity of democracy over election matters.
A legal luminary, Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN), stated this over the weekend at Gregory University, Uturu, as the 9th Convocation Lecturer on the topic, “The Judiciary As The Final Arbiter of Electoral Outcomes: Aberrations and Judgements Without Justice,” stating, “In the intricate operation of democracy, the tripartite structure of government—the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—forms the bedrock of governance.”
The judiciary, he said, “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,” and asked, “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.”
According to him, “Elections, the pulsating heart of representative democracy, are the grand showcase of the people’s will. The electoral process is, therefore, a sanctum of democratic expression, and any disruptions or disputes within it demand scrupulous resolution.”
The judiciary’s involvement in electoral matters, he said, “has been both lauded and disparaged. 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 judgement for popular sovereignty?”
According to him, “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?
“Ultimately, the judiciary’s involvement in electoral disputes is both a testament to and a test of its integrity. The gavel, after all, may be mightier than the ballot or at least equally essential in ensuring its legitimacy. 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.”
Prof. Ozekhome concludes, “The judiciary occupies an undeniably pivotal position in the democratic framework as the arbiter of electoral justice, standing as both a shield and a sword in the pursuit of free and fair elections. When courts become the final arbiters of electoral outcomes, they may unintentionally eclipse the electorate’s will. In such scenarios, public trust in the judiciary and the electoral process can erode, creating a perception that legal institutions, rather than voters, determine who holds power.”
The Judiciary’s role in shaping political landscapes for good or for bad is evident, he pointed out, stating that in emerging democracies like Nigeria, these challenges are particularly acute, adding “Judicial independence is often compromised by a cocktail of political interference, systemic corruption, and inadequate infrastructure, and the politicisation of judicial appointments, coupled with the reliance on rigid proceduralism, undermines the Judiciary’s credibility as an impartial arbiter.”
To address these issues, he said, “a multipronged approach is essential; judicial reforms must prioritise the training and specialisation of judges in electoral law, equipping them with the expertise to handle disputes efficiently and fairly; and procedural reforms should impose strict timelines on the resolution of election petitions, ensuring disputes do not linger to the detriment of governance and public confidence. Importantly, the judiciary must adopt a principle of minimalism, focusing on facilitating compliance with constitutional standards rather than dictating electoral outcomes.
“In addition, courts must recognise their dual mandate: to uphold the rule of law and to respect the democratic will of the people. The path forward lies in recalibrating this role, embracing reforms that balance legal precision with equitable outcomes, and fostering an institutional culture that prioritises democratic will. By doing so, the judiciary can solidify its standing as a credible, impartial guardian of democracy, safeguarding not only the rule of law but also the foundational principles of popular sovereignty.
“In this balancing act, the judiciary must remain acutely aware of its influence, wielding its gavel not as a sledgehammer but as a scalpel precise, measured, and focused on preserving the integrity of democracy.
Only through such an approach can it maintain its legitimacy and reinforce its role as a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that elections reflect the true will of the people while standing firm against attempts to undermine the democratic ethos.
READ MORE FROM: NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then