There is a recurring misunderstanding in public discussions about what the election petition courts actually did in relation to the 2023 presidential election in Nigeria. The key issue is the difference between independently proving a winner and upholding an already declared result.
1. The Role of the Courts
The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) and the Supreme Court were not tasked with conducting a fresh election or recounting votes. Their duty was to review legal challenges brought against INEC’s declared result and determine whether that result should be set aside.
They examined:
- Allegations of non-compliance with electoral laws
- Claims of irregularities in the voting and collation process
- Whether those issues materially affected the outcome
2. What the Courts Did Not Do
The courts did not:
- Recompute votes from polling unit result sheets
- Conduct an independent tally of the election
- Establish a new factual “winner” from scratch based on raw electoral data
They also did not issue a judgment based on personally verifying all polling unit results as a fresh electoral exercise.
3. What the Courts Actually Held
What the courts did was:
- Accept INEC’s declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the winner as the starting point
- Apply the legal burden of proof to the petitioners
- Find that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to invalidate that declaration
- Accordingly, dismiss the petitions
In effect, the declared result remained legally valid because it was not successfully overturned.
4. Burden of Proof and Legal Presumption
Election petition law in Nigeria operates on a strict framework:
- Official election results are presumed valid (presumption of regularity)
- The burden lies on the petitioner to prove serious non-compliance
- The petitioner must also show that any proven irregularities affected the overall outcome
If this burden is not met, the court cannot annul the declared result.
5. Key Clarification in Public Debate
It is therefore not technically accurate to say:
“The courts independently proved Tinubu won the election.”
What is accurate is:
“The courts upheld INEC’s declaration of Tinubu as winner because the petitioners failed to prove otherwise to the required legal standard.”
Conclusion
The judicial outcome was not a fresh determination of the election winner, but a legal affirmation that the existing declaration by INEC stood unchallenged in law.
Published by Chuks Nwachuku
