A legal luminary, Mike Ozekhome. SAN, has criticised the Nigerian judiciary for allegedly delivering judgements in several election matters that lack justice.

Ozekhome made this assertion at Gregory University Uturu (GUU), Abia State, while delivering the 9th Convocation Lecture of the institution.

Speaking on the theme, ?Judiciary as the Final Arbiter of Electoral Outcomes: Aberrations and Judgements Without Justice,? the human rights lawyer lamented that some recent judgements on election matters have been devoid of justice

Ozekhome reminded the judiciary that its role in resolving electoral disputes is to safeguard the integrity, fairness, and legality of electoral processes by interpreting and applying electoral laws to address conflicts that emerge during or following elections.

He emphasised that this crucial function not only upholds the rule of law but also reinforces public confidence in the democratic process, providing a sense of order and justice when tensions are high.

Ozekhome highlighted the judiciary?s role in shaping political landscapes, noting that its influence can be for good or ill. He acknowledged that while some decisions have upheld electoral integrity and corrected systemic failings, others have raised serious concerns over proceduralism and legitimacy.

?In many cases, the emphasis on legal technicalities over substantive justice amplified public scepticism, highlighting the judiciary?s vulnerability to criticism. Does the intervention reflect the will of the people, or does it substitute judicial judgment for popular sovereignty? This question strikes at the core of democratic theory and the judiciary?s role within it.

?When the courts step in to resolve disputes, are they amplifying the people?s voice by ensuring fair representation, or are they muffling it by overriding the collective verdict obtained through the ballot??

The Senior Advocate of Nigeria reminded the judiciary that both the electorate and those elected always look to it for justice through sound judgements. He remarked that some election petition results in the country have produced shocking outcomes that have unsettled the public.

Ozekhome referenced the nullification of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, which was intended to finalise Nigeria?s transition to the Third Republic, as an example enabled by the judiciary?s controversial involvement.

?The episode began when, on June 10, 1993, Justice Bassey Ikpeme of the Abuja High Court, in the dead of the night, issued an interim injunction halting the conduct of the presidential election undertaken by the then National Electoral Commission (NEC).?

Bringing the discussion closer to the present, Ozekhome cited the case of Hope Uzodinma vs Emeka Ihedioha, describing it as one of Nigeria?s most controversial electoral cases. He noted that the case highlighted the complexities of electoral jurisprudence and the challenges inherent in the judiciary?s interpretation of Nigeria?s electoral laws.

He argued that the exploitation of procedural rules has further burdened the judicial system. According to him, the quality and pertinence of testimony tendered by witnesses are more critical than the number of witnesses in an election matter, as a large number of witnesses may not necessarily guarantee victory for a party.

Ozekhome reminded the Nigerian judiciary of its sacrosanct role in safeguarding democracy. He described election tribunals in Nigeria as akin to bats because they cannot be classified as either superior or inferior courts but possess both original and appellate jurisdictions in the adjudication of election petitions.

The legal luminary urged the judiciary to deliver sound judgements in electoral matters that would strengthen Nigerian democracy in line with the independence of the judiciary.

He also called for further amendments to the 1999 Constitution and the 2022 Electoral Act to ensure that election petitions are concluded before the inauguration of elected officials, as was done during the 1979 elections in the Second Republic.

?In other words, no winner of an election petition should be sworn in until the disposal of a petition challenging his or her election,? Ozekhome said. (Daily Sun)

Update news