A popular lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has sharply criticised the Nigerian judiciary for prioritising legal technicalities over true justice in recent election tribunal rulings.
The renowned human rights lawyer expressed his concerns during the 9th Convocation Lecture at Gregory University Uturu (GUU) in Abia State, where he delivered a thought-provoking lecture on “Judiciary as the Final Arbiter of Electoral Outcomes: Aberrations and Judgements Without Justice.”
Ozekhome lamented that many recent election-related judgements had failed to deliver justice, calling into question the role of the judiciary in ensuring fair and democratic outcomes.
He stressed that the judiciary’s main responsibility in resolving election disputes is to safeguard the integrity, fairness, and legality of electoral processes. It must apply the law to address conflicts that arise either during or after elections.
“The judiciary must protect the public trust in the electoral system. It must maintain the rule of law and ensure justice is done, especially when tensions are high and people’s faith in democracy is tested,” Ozekhome explained.
While acknowledging that some judicial decisions have strengthened democracy by correcting flaws in the electoral system, Ozekhome was critical of what he described as a tendency to emphasise legal technicalities over substantive justice.
He asked, “Does the intervention of the courts truly reflect the will of the people, or does it simply replace judicial judgment with popular sovereignty?”
Ozekhome raised serious concerns about whether the judiciary is truly amplifying the people’s voice when resolving disputes or undermining it by disregarding the collective decision made at the ballot box.
He reminded the judiciary of its role in shaping the political landscape. “The judiciary can either enhance democracy or weaken it,” Ozekhome warned, adding that the country’s political future could be determined by the fairness of the tribunals.
Drawing on past events, the legal luminary referred to the nullification of Nigeria’s June 12, 1993 presidential election. He described it as an example of judicial interference with significant consequences, noting how Justice Bassey Ikpeme’s late-night interim injunction disrupted the presidential election scheduled by the National Electoral Commission (NEC).
“The episode started when, on June 10, 1993, Justice Ikpeme issued an injunction halting the presidential election at the eleventh hour. This was a major turning point in Nigeria’s political journey,” Ozekhome said.
Moving to more recent cases, Ozekhome discussed the widely publicised electoral dispute between Hope Uzodinma and Emeka Ihedioha. The case, he argued, exposed the complexities of Nigeria’s election law and the challenges in interpreting those laws correctly.
He pointed out that the procedural rules often exploited by politicians and their lawyers had placed an undue burden on the judicial system. According to Ozekhome, the focus should be on the quality of testimony provided by witnesses, rather than the sheer number of witnesses presented in election disputes.
“A case should not be decided on how many people testify but on the merit of the testimonies. The judiciary must focus on the substance of the evidence and not on procedural technicalities,” he stressed.
Ozekhome’s criticism wasn’t just about the past and present judicial processes. He also called for urgent reforms to Nigeria’s electoral laws, urging that changes be made to ensure quicker resolutions of election petitions.
He proposed amendments to both the 1999 Constitution and the 2022 Electoral Act. One of his most significant recommendations was that no candidate declared the winner of an election should be sworn in before the resolution of any pending election petitions, just as was done in the 1979 elections during the Second Republic.
“Election petitions must be resolved before the swearing-in of winners. No individual should be declared the winner and assume office until their election has been legally affirmed,” Ozekhome said.
The Senior Advocate called for the judiciary to strengthen Nigerian democracy by delivering sound judgements that would build public confidence and prevent future legal controversies. He urged the judiciary to remember its vital role in ensuring justice is upheld, not just in technical terms, but in accordance with the true spirit of democracy.
He also likened election tribunals to bats in the legal system, as they are neither superior nor inferior courts, yet they have both original and appellate jurisdiction. Ozekhome argued that tribunals must recognise their responsibility to ensure fairness and justice, as they are central to upholding the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic processes.
“The independence of the judiciary is vital. The judiciary must not shy away from delivering decisions that uphold the public’s faith in democracy,” Ozekhome stated.