Why Judicial Oversight Remains Crucial In Electoral Matters — Adeyanju

Human rights lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, has defended the role of the judiciary in determining electoral disputes, insisting that judicial oversight remains indispensable in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

In a statement titled “Why Judicial Oversight Is Still Necessary in Electoral Matters” on Wednesday, Adeyanju argued that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), expressly empowers election tribunals and appellate courts to adjudicate disputes arising from governorship and presidential elections.

Citing Sections 6, 239 and 285 of the Constitution, he noted that election tribunals and higher courts are legally vested with the authority to determine electoral disputes, warning that any suggestion that courts should not “determine who wins elections” amounts to asking the judiciary to abandon its constitutional mandate.

“To suggest that courts should not ‘determine who wins elections,’ is to effectively suggest that courts should abandon their constitutional responsibilities,” he stated.

Adeyanju referenced the landmark Supreme Court decision in Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (Western State), where the apex court rejected attempts by the then military government to shield its actions from judicial scrutiny.

“In Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (Western State) (1971) 1 All N.L.R. 225, the Supreme Court firmly rejected efforts by the military government to shield its actions from judicial scrutiny,” he said, adding that the ruling underscored the judiciary’s constitutional duty to review governmental actions.

Clarifying the judiciary’s role, Adeyanju stressed that courts do not conduct elections but rather interpret whether elections were conducted in accordance with the law.

“The courts do not conduct elections; they interpret whether elections were conducted in accordance with the law. If they were to step aside, it would imply that electoral fraud and irregularities will go unchecked,” he argued.

He further contended that Nigeria’s political culture makes judicial intervention inevitable, alleging that politicians, political parties and even the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are often culpable in electoral misconduct.

“The reality of Nigeria’s political culture makes judicial intervention indispensable. Politicians, political parties and even INEC are, too often, badly behaved. Without the intervention of the judiciary, injustice would be cemented as victory,” he said.

Adeyanju cited past cases where courts restored electoral mandates to politicians, including former Edo State governor Adams Oshiomhole, former Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi, former Ondo State governor Olusegun Mimiko, and former Anambra State governor Peter Obi.

“These leaders would not have assumed office but for the intervention of the judiciary. The problem, therefore, is not that courts determine the outcome of elections; it is that political actors keep creating circumstances that require their intervention,” he maintained.

While acknowledging concerns about judicial integrity, the lawyer called for reforms aimed at strengthening the justice system rather than weakening it. He advocated an impartial and merit-based appointment process for judges to enhance public confidence in electoral adjudication.

“Reforms of our justice system is extremely necessary to eradicate judicial compromise in electoral cases and strengthen the integrity of the judiciary but not stripping the courts of jurisdiction,” he stated. “We need better judges, not fewer judicial powers.”

Adeyanju concluded by warning that weakening the judiciary would undermine constitutional democracy, describing the courts as the “last line of defense against arbitrariness.”

“In a constitutional democracy, courts are the last line of defense against arbitrariness. Weakening the courts will do us no good,” he said.