The recent judgment by the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) in Nigeria has once again exposed the fragility of the country’s democracy and the deepening mistrust in its judicial system. In a case challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election, the outcome was almost a foregone conclusion, leaving many Nigerians disillusioned.
What is particularly striking is the timing of the judgment, which coincided with President Tinubu’s 100th day in office. Even more telling is the fact that as the ruling was being delivered, the President was in New Delhi, India, attending the G20 summit, highlighting the entrenched power of the incumbent.
The lack of suspense surrounding the verdict was evident in the confidence displayed by Tinubu’s camp. His spokesperson had publicly stated that they were unworried about the outcome, while the lead-up to the judgment saw an air of certainty from Tinubu’s loyalists. Such confidence in the outcome of high-stakes political cases is deeply troubling and reflects a growing skepticism about the judiciary’s independence.
This skepticism is not unwarranted. Many Nigerians, including senior lawyers, have lost faith in the ability of the courts to deliver justice, especially in politically charged cases. The judicial system appears mired in issues of corruption, undue influence, and a lack of transparency, further eroding public trust.
The burden of proof in election-related cases in Nigeria is also a significant issue. Unlike some countries where the electoral commission bears the responsibility of proving the conduct and regularity of elections, Nigerian litigants often struggle to gather sufficient evidence to support their claims. The PEPT’s recent ruling placed the blame on the petitioners for not producing enough evidence of electoral malfeasance, despite the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) refusal to provide crucial documents.
The consequences of this situation extend beyond legal battles. While those declared winners in contentious elections can use public funds and state resources to defend their positions in court, those who believe they were unjustly denied victory often face financial struggles in their pursuit of justice. This inequality in resources creates an uneven playing field.
Moreover, the judiciary’s role in democracy is under scrutiny. When the judiciary appears to be complicit or powerless in the face of alleged electoral injustices, it undermines the very foundations of democracy. Democracy should be “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” but this ideal remains elusive in Nigeria and many other African countries where elections are marred by irregularities.
The consequences of this crisis of confidence are potentially dire. Voter apathy is on the rise as some Nigerians vow never to participate in elections again, believing that the real battles should be fought and decided at the polling booths rather than in courtrooms. When the judiciary is perceived as a democracy undertaker, it creates a breeding ground for social unrest and a breakdown of order.
As Nigeria navigates the complexities of its democracy, the need for comprehensive judicial reform is apparent. Rebuilding trust in the judiciary, ensuring transparency, and addressing the imbalance in resources available to litigants are crucial steps. A robust, independent, and accountable judiciary is vital for a democracy to flourish, and Nigeria must strive to attain this if it is to preserve the integrity of its democratic processes.
