Nigerian Experts Warn Judiciary Is Usurping Voter Sovereignty
Former NHRC head Chidi Odinkalu argues at a Lagos symposium that excessive court intervention in elections undermines democratic mandates ahead of the 2027 polls.
Key points
- Chidi Odinkalu warned that Nigerian election jurisprudence often allows courts to determine political mandates, undermining popular sovereignty.
- Former INEC commissioner Mike Igini stated that courts increasingly determine election winners, shifting power away from voters.
- The Tunji Braithwaite Symposium in Lagos highlighted the need to balance judicial oversight with the democratic will of the people.
Concerns over the judiciary's expanding influence in determining electoral outcomes dominated recent discussions in Lagos. Speakers at the third edition of the Tunji Braithwaite Symposium warned that excessive judicial intervention risks weakening citizens' confidence in elections and undermining the principle of popular sovereignty.
Former National Human Rights Commission chairman Chidi Odinkalu, former INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner Mike Igini, and retired judge Oludotun Adefope-Okojie argued that while courts must resolve genuine disputes, they should not effectively replace voters as the ultimate arbiters of political mandates. The symposium, organized by the Tunji Braithwaite Foundation, examined these dynamics ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Jurisprudence challenges democratic foundations
According to Business News Nigeria, Odinkalu noted that although courts have a legitimate constitutional role in interpreting electoral laws, current jurisprudence often allows judicial decisions to alter outcomes. He stated that this trend effectively determines who receives the mandate to govern, a development he described as unjustifiable in many ways.
Odinkalu emphasized that Section 14(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution establishes that sovereignty belongs to the people. He argued that when courts expropriate this constitutional role, the logic of democratic government is compromised, potentially endangering both government stability and constitutional integrity.
Litigation supersedes voting arithmetic
The former NHRC head expressed concern that the increasing importance of litigation before and after elections has created a system where legal procedure outweighs voter intent. He questioned whether elections should be decided by the skills of lawyers in drafting pleadings rather than the arithmetic of votes cast at polling units.
He warned that if elections are settled on the basis of legal traversals rather than tabulation, the process becomes perverse. Odinkalu clarified that this criticism is not an indictment of all judges, but a call to address a systemic issue where legal technicalities overshadow democratic participation.
Institutional power requires balance
Odinkalu stressed that constitutional institutions, including courts, can strengthen democracy but may also undermine it if their powers are exercised in ways that weaken popular participation. The discussion highlighted the delicate balance required between judicial oversight and the direct expression of the electorate's will.
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, the consensus among these experts is that the role of the judiciary must be carefully circumscribed. The forward question remains how to ensure that legal frameworks protect the integrity of the process without effectively determining the outcome themselves.
