1. The 2023 Electoral Law Was Not the Problem
The 2023 Electoral Act gave INEC the authority to prescribe the mode of transferring results. INEC exercised this authority by mandating electronic transmission of results to the IREV, and requiring that manually transferred results be confirmed against IREV entries. In cases where the IREV results are missing, the law requires that manually transferred results be checked against duplicate results sent to the police and the agents of the political parties.
Key Point: The law itself was clear and contained safeguards to ensure the credibility of election results. Any failures in implementation were not due to gaps in the legislation.
2. Courts Introduced Confusion
Courts have contributed to the perception that the mode of transmitting results was open-ended. By not upholding INEC’s prescribed electronic transfer system, the judiciary introduced ambiguity into a process that was designed to be clear and transparent. This misrepresentation undermined public confidence in the electoral process.
Implication: Judicial actions, whether intentional or not, can create confusion that contradicts the clear framework established by the law.
3. Impact on Public Confidence
No matter how tightly laws are written, courts can find ways to interpret them in ways that deviate from voters’ intentions. This undermines the credibility of the electoral process and weakens trust in democracy.
Observation: We cannot continue to assume that courts are always disinterested arbiters. Blind trust in judicial impartiality creates an environment that allows judicial manipulation to occur.
4. Proposed Solution: Electoral Arbitration Panels
To restore confidence, Nigeria could consider establishing electoral arbitration panels, where:
Candidates appoint their own arbitrators.
These arbitrators sit alongside judges selected through a popular process.
Disputes are resolved transparently, with no candidate forced to rely entirely on judges whose impartiality cannot be guaranteed.
Potential Benefits:
- Reduces perception of judicial bias.
- Increases candidate confidence in the dispute resolution process.
- Strengthens transparency and public trust in elections.
Conclusion:
The integrity of Nigerian elections does not depend on the law alone; it also depends on how the law is interpreted and enforced. Courts have, at times, acted in ways that undermine clarity and trust. Electoral reform—such as introducing arbitration panels—could help safeguard democracy by combining legal oversight with trusted, candidate-approved mechanisms.
Published by Chuks Nwachuku
