Lamentations by the leadership of the country’s judiciary on the increasing volume of cases in the courts, and how these constitute a serious burden on the judicial system, is a development that should worry all well-meaning Nigerians. On the one hand, it portrays the citizens as enlightened and knowledgeable enough to ventilate their grievances using the legal process; on the other hand, however, seemingly endless pursuit of litigation for every grievance points to Nigerians being imbued with a spirit of do or die; seeing disagreements as a matter of life and death, and bent on winning disputes at all costs. Naturally, this presents a heavy load on the courts as well as the judges, the pressure being more because most of the cases are on elections. Certainly, there is a need to interrogate the problem with a view to finding lasting solutions.
Nigeria is rapidly gaining prominence as a very litigious country based on the preponderance of disputes incessantly besieging the judicial sector. Against this background, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, stated as follows: “We are constantly on our toes and the dockets are ever rising in response to the challenges of the time. This underscores the undisputed fact that Nigeria continuously ranks among the most litigious countries in the world. I strongly believe it is high time we began to imbibe the culture of less litigation and more of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms so that our courts can be freed of unnecessary burden and depletion of both human and material resources.”
Political-related matters constitute a significant portion of the frightening litigation statistics. Femi Falana (SAN) once observed that Nigeria has the highest pre-election cases and election petitions in the world! Indeed the 2023 general elections produced 1209 petitions at a whopping 80.82 per cent of the entire contested seats. To accommodate the enormous petitions, a total of 98 panels were set up across the various election tribunals in the country in three distinct categories: The Presidential Election Petition Court; the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, and the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal.
Lamenting the situation, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem (PCA), stated thus: “It is becoming economically alarming that the Nigerian judicial system is inundated with electoral litigation and adjudication almost all year round. Following the conduct of primary elections prior to the 2023 general elections, the court received a total of 813 appeals arising from the primary elections, across the 36 states of the Federation and the FCT. The implication is that commercial matters are tied down in our courts. Industrial disputes and land matters, which when determined in good time could create jobs and release cash flow into the economy, are tied down in court registries. Democracy is beautiful; it is the way to go. However, politicians should, in the interest of our national economic development, imbibe the spirit of good sportsmanship. They should pay more attention to internal democracy and exercise the spirit of loyalty to a cause which necessarily entails letting go in the interest of discipline and internal harmony. All elections need not end up in court.”
Surely, the alarm being raised by the judiciary on the danger of endless litigation particularly on election matters is significant. The two observers, the CJN and PCA, represent the highest leadership of the judicial arm of government, and hence are abundantly knowledgeable about the subject matter. Undoubtedly, the huge statistics of electoral cases indicate that justice dispensation is suffering and will continue to suffer unless a way is designed to improve justice delivery, and also to discourage unmeritorious petitions.
Disputants no doubt should endeavour to exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (where applicable and available) before resorting to litigation. However, the current mountainous electoral cases mirror Nigeria’s systemic failure of which the overzealousness of political litigants is only a part. Litigants, sometimes encouraged by their lawyers, often pursue cases that are patently frivolous. At the same time, the electoral process is often perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be compromised, in which case, it will be inappropriate to expect aggrieved contestants to accept the outcome of such a process in good faith without contesting it. Election racketeers would be having a field day if declared losers decide to sleep over their rights to challenge defectively conducted polls. It appears that the judicial sermons aim at protecting the judiciary from further litigation burden without considering the public perception of elections fraught with irregularities.
While the leadership of the judiciary are on course to warn of the danger of too much pressure on the courts, members of the public nevertheless are free to decide when and how to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The doors of justice should remain open to all and sundry; and with a promise to give everyone fair hearing.
The focus of the learned jurists appears to be on the symptom rather than the cause of the problem as the rising number of election cases is a reactionary reflection of a defective political system. The critical questions are: Why do we have so many petitions after elections? Why is there a lack of public confidence in the electoral system and the ballot? Won’t the electoral system ruin the country’s democracy, the way things are going?
To address the problem, a transparently conducted election is important, as it will likely produce minimal complaints than one shrouded in controversy. In the 2015 elections for instance, the presidential contest did not end up in court, and overall, the election recorded less than 50 per cent litigation for the first time in recent history, an indication that the elections were considered to be fairly balanced. But it is noteworthy too that the loser could have insisted on going to court, even if he would lose.
Most of the country’s elections, including the 2023 general elections, were marred with gross irregularities, manipulations, rigging, voters’ intimidation, financial inducements, and other vices. Any process that permits such lapses in election is fundamentally faulty. In the same vein, a system where (most) electoral mandates are determined in the courtroom rather than the ballot box is antithetical to democracy. There is no gainsaying that our electoral framework is in dire need of reforms.
To decongest the court of voluminous electoral matters will require intentional collaborative efforts from all stakeholders. Political parties should internalise and practise democratic principles. Pre-election exercises such as pre-qualification screening, nomination, submission of name of a candidate, substitution of candidate, the conduct of primaries, and sponsorship of candidates should be founded on fairness and equality. This will drastically reduce the number of pre-election complaints. The admonition of the PCA in this regard, for parties to pay attention to internal democracy is germane. By doing so, all pre-election issues would have been dealt with before elections are conducted.
Furthermore, a review of the extant electoral law is expedient to explore the possibility of having all elections on the same day; and ensure that all election petitions are disposed of before swearing in. The Supreme Court may be empowered to handle the presidential election as first and final arbiter while others begin from Court of Appeal to Supreme Court. Very importantly, there should be established state or regional appellate courts in line with true federalism. Certain cases should terminate at the State/Regional Supreme Courts, and cases pertaining to federal elections should go to the Federal appellate courts. The court should place substantial justice over technicalities. However, it should not hesitate to slam frivolous election petitions with substantial costs against the petitioner and their legal representatives. This way, litigants would learn to diligently weigh their cases before invoking the powers of the court.
Importantly, however, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should be alive to its responsibility, to organise credible, free and fair elections and to restore voters’ confidence in the electoral system. When voters are seen to manifestly determine their leaders, politicians will find it easy to imbibe the spirit of sportsmanship in elections.
Source: The Guardian
