Judicial intervention as extension of 2023 elections, By Dakuku Peterside

The last presidential and National Assembly elections are very important for our democracy because they are controversial. Lots of riding, giving more drama than anticipated. Our current reality is that with the main political gladiator posture, the 2023 presidential and National Assembly elections have led to direct legal intervention as the last stage of the electoral process. This is good. At the very least, it is the only legitimate channel to address complaints against election conduct and seek redress.

The two main political parties, the presidential candidates PDP and LP have made it clear that they approached the court to “correct what was not done properly” on February 25. Apart from the two presidential candidates, many National Assembly candidates have also shown interest in approaching the court. Without claiming to be a prophet, the number of cases may be less than in 2019 due to the faith of the contestants in the court among other reasons, but the issue will be controversial this time.

These problems range from the interpretation of constitutional and electoral acts, violations and criminal interference in the polling process that raise several questions about the validity of the election results.

The assumption, based on the INEC narrative, before the election is that we will have some reason to drag the courts into a simple constitutional exercise of the people who elect our Leaders. This hypothesis turns out to be wrong.

The avoidable slip by INEC made the trigger for the option of legal intervention. The worry is not that political gladiators are reaching out to the courts to help fix our electoral process and possibly help us “elect” our political leaders, but that it will affect our courts. This is a Judiciary which, objectively, cannot claim that it enjoys the best public position before Nigerians. In an environment full of corruption, even in the courts, the democratic process is at risk if it has to rely on judicial results to determine the validity of the electoral process.

One way to lower democracy in a society or country is to have a compromised, incompetent, pusillanimous, and political judiciary. This always gives citizens only one option – self-help – the most common denominator for crisis and chaos for the country. Examples abound where the collapse of proper constitutional processes has produced failed states. Therefore, we will focus on the courts in the next few weeks to stabilize and save our democracy.

Apart from the issues that were alleged during the election, there are some constitutional issues that are the issue in the last election. Notable among them is the controversial issue of 25 percent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) as part of the requirement to be declared the winner of the presidential election and the legal position on the electronic upload and transmission of election results at the polling unit/booth level. The court will interpret the law and determine whether INEC or any candidate or party has violated it. The court must also judge the claims presented by the candidates, which fall into three categories: (1) Allegations of “stolen mandate” where other candidates claim that they won the election based on the results collected by themselves from the polling unit. by the agent and must be declared the winner by the court. (2) Candidates may request the annulment of the election. (3) The court maintains the status quo and allows the president-elect and the winner of the last presidential election to lead Nigeria because the opposition cannot prove their case, or the level of infractions is not sufficient to have changed the outcome of the election.

The national elections are technically over and the battle for the consolidation of democracy has been turned over to the courts. The judiciary must take all necessary steps to protect itself from political tar. The bench leaders must admit that they need hard work to earn their reputation in the minds of Nigerians. There is no love lost between Nigerians and legal intervention in politics due to several court cases related to past political contests. The crisis of credibility that the judiciary is suffering is visible to all and has damaged the institution. It is trite to say that over time, Nigerian courts have not lived up to a decent reputation in most electoral and political cases.

The impartiality of the judiciary and its basic principles on politically related constitutional and electoral issues should not make anyone doubt their courage to do justice. The belief in the courts as the main sanctum of justice in a democracy is founded on the assumption that judges will be infallible.

In the history of Nigeria, the apex court has never annulled, annulled or changed the results of a presidential election. We hold that this is because no presidential election case before the Supreme Court has convinced us that prima facia justification exists.

However, we have precedents in Africa regarding such cancellations. In Kenya’s 2017 presidential poll, the Supreme Court annulled the results of the presidential election, citing irregularities and that the election had not been “conducted in accordance with the constitution”. This court is a landmark and it was done to save democracy in Kenya.

Indeed, in a democracy, no one can underestimate the role of the judiciary in correcting wrongdoing. Ideally, the court should allow technical issues to take a back seat and allow substantial justice to prevail. That is the only way we can correct the dysfunctional system and win the trust of Nigerians. This point is very important because in important cases that capture the attention of the nation and citizens who are waiting for justice to be served, everyone finds it difficult to understand why legal technicalities will be the basis of the judgment rather than the substance of the law. Only lawyers know these technicalities, and decisions based on them are often difficult to sell to the public.

Communicating judicial pronouncements to the lay audience has been the bane of judicial reporting in Nigeria and is one of the main causes of public distrust of the judiciary today. This presidential election case allows the court to show its power and the clear separation of the executive and the legislature. Its duty is to uphold the constitution and the rule of law and not to change the collective will of the people expressed through voting. Any judicial decision of the highest court is final and can only be changed by yourself or God. Therefore, Supreme Court judges should be circumspect and confident in their choices based on the laws and constitution of Nigeria from where they derive their powers.

It may be convenient for electoral disputes at the sub-national and sub-sovereign levels to be determined by the judicial process, as we have seen in cases where the Supreme Court has changed the fate of governors and states. It is common and understandable that at this level, any decision taken by the Supreme Court may not harm the States because the States are related and have a federal relationship and, thus, can withstand the sudden change of governor by the Supreme Court. . But at the highest national level, the presidency, for example, technical and legal arguments may not be enough. Judicial decisions will be determined by considerations of higher jurisprudence, national interest, and national security. At that level, judges of the Supreme Court must protect the Nigerian State and its sovereign security on matters of justice on the rights of individual contestants for partisan pre-eminence. There must be a nation before a partisan contestant gets the right to win an election. Nigeria cannot throw dirty water with the baby. Nigeria’s existence and growth is bigger than the issue of who leads. We must always remember that there will be another election in four years if Nigeria can survive the furore caused by the last election.

It is unfortunate that after all the plans, the provisions of the electoral act that was welcomed with fanfare by all Nigerians, and the promise of INEC to conduct free and fair elections in 2023 because of the BVAS and IREV provisions, we are still going. It is up to the courts to determine the validity or otherwise of the poll. We will all agree that BVAS works and contributes to more transparency and perhaps to less disputes about election results, especially in national assembly polls. We should do a post-mortem of the election and learn from it to improve subsequent polls.

And the Supreme Court and the courts must remember that all eyes inside and outside the country. He brought the hope of a nation and should not take that hope away.

We look forward to a new Nigeria where the intrusion of law into politics will be minimal, if not eliminated.

Dakuku Peterside is a policy and leadership expert.