Opinion
Inside The Courts And Challenging Election Outcomes,By Samson Itodo
Litigating election disputes is contentious, complex, and excessively technical. This accounts for the reason election tribunals and courts make efforts to resolve election disputes but often fail to address the grievances of litigants. As expected, political attention is shifting to the courts as aggrieved candidates and political parties that contested in Nigeria’s 2023 general elections are approaching the courts to challenge the outcome of the polls and seeking legal remedies. The polling unit was the arena of electoral competition a few weeks ago, but the courts have displaced the polling units as the new arena for electoral contests. As it stands, the courts will determine the final vote in all election disputes it entertains.
The process of registering a complaint or challenging the outcome of the election is called an election petition. Election tribunals or the courts address grievances with election results ventilated by litigants. Unlike other cases, election petitions are special cases in a class of their own. Due to their special nature, the procedures, courts, and timelines for filing documents are unique. Some technical defects or irregularities considered immaterial in other proceedings could be fatal to proceedings in election petitions. Let’s consider five critical components of Nigeria’s election adjudication process.
Not all persons can question an election outcome.
Different categories of persons participate in elections, but not all possess the right to challenge or question the result of an election. Section 133 of the Electoral Act 2022 defines persons entitled to present an election petition. They include candidates in an election and a political party that participated in the election. A person whose election is questioned is a party to an election petition. Where the complaint is against a permanent or adhoc official of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the electoral commission will be listed as a party due to its role in the administration of elections. Nigeria’s electoral law considers these persons necessary parties in an election petition. An election petition will suffer an ill fate if these parties are excluded.
The person (s) or political party that initiates or files an election petition is referred to as the Petitioner, while the person or party the petition is made against is called the Respondent. In most cases, the Petitioner will seek to establish that the candidate INEC declared the winner was not validly elected or that they are entitled to be declared the winner. The respondents will include the person or party declared the election winner. A tribunal or Court would not entertain any petition that questions an election result or a winner declared by INEC unless the person announced as a winner is joined as a party.
Special tribunals and courts resolve election disputes
A distinctive feature of election petitions lies in the courts and tribunals with judicial powers to resolve election disputes. The 1999 Constitution, as amended and Electoral Act 2022, establishes the following tribunals and courts with jurisdictional competencies;
National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunals for each state of the federation and the FCT with authority to entertain petitions on National Assembly and House of Assembly elections (Section 285(1) 1999 Constitution as amended)
Governorship Election Tribunal to hear and determine petitions for governorship elections (Section 285(2) 1999 Constitution as amended)
Court of Appeal to adjudicate petitions against presidential elections (Section 239(1) 1999 Constitution)
Area Council Election Tribunal to resolve disputes related to the elections into the office of the Chairman and Councilors within the FCT. (Section 131(1) Electoral Act 2022)
As a matter of law, election petition tribunals are constituted not later than 30 days before an election holds. The Tribunal is required to open registries for business seven days before the election. These tribunals and courts can only resolve an election dispute if the law gives them authority. Without the legal power, any proceeding conducted by these tribunals or Courts will be an exercise in futility. An election tribunal or Court must fulfill certain conditions before it assumes jurisdiction to resolve an election dispute. First, Tribunal or Court must be properly constituted. Members of the panel should be duly qualified as prescribed by law. Secondly, the subject matter of the case is within the defined scope or powers of the Tribunal or Court. Lastly, due process is followed in initiating the case before a court, and all pre-conditions have been satisfied.
All timeframes are sacrosanct.
The Constitution and Electoral Act makes explicit provisions on the timeframe within which an aggrieved person can institute a legal case challenging the result of an election. The law also provides a timeline for the courts to determine an election petition. The Court will only entertain an election petition if the petition is filed within the timeframe prescribed by the law. The Petitioner intending to challenge an election result must file their petition within 21 days after the declaration of the election results. Filing a petition outside the fixed period renders it incompetent and strips the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.
An election tribunal has 180 days from the filing date to hear and determine an election petition. Any petition determined outside 180 days is invalid. Any person displeased with the decision of the National/State Assembly or Governorship election tribunal must file a notice of appeal in the registry of the Tribunal or Court within 21 days from the decision date. An appeal against the decision of the Tribunal must be disposed of by the appellate courts (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) within 60 days from the date of the delivery of judgment by the Tribunal or Court. In addition, appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court shall be filed within 14 days from the date the decision appealed against was delivered. It takes approximately eight months to resolve a dispute on National/State Assembly elections, ten months in the case of a governorship election petition, and eight months to determine a presidential election petition. No matter the exigencies, or emergencies, the time fixed by the constitution to hear and determine election cases cannot be extended.
Grounds for challenging an election must be recognized by law.
Any individual or political party that intends to challenge or question the result of an election must ensure the petition is established on a valid ground or reason recognized by law. An election petition can only succeed with valid grounds recognized by the 1999 Constitution or 2022 Electoral Act. Section 134 of the Electoral Act 2022 lays out three grounds. They include;
Non-qualification: An election can be questioned if the person declared as a winner was not qualified to contest the election at the time of the election. Where a candidate fails to meet the criteria enshrined in the constitution, such a person is ineligible to contest an election. The requirements of citizenship, age (President 35yrs, Senate and Governors 35yrs, House of Reps and State assembly 25yrs), membership and sponsorship by a political party, and education qualification are the foundational criteria for running for office.
Corrupt practices and non-compliance: A petitioner must establish that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with provisions of the 2022 Electoral Act. Corrupt practices include electoral offenses like election fraud, bribery, falsification of election results. Non-compliance refers to outright violations of the 2022 Electoral Act and INEC Guidelines, which confers an undue advantage to a candidate or party.
Failure of the person declared a winner to score a majority of lawful votes: Once the person initiating the petition can establish the candidate declared a winner of an election was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election, the election will be nullified. This ground relates to errors, computational accuracy in the collation of votes, and exclusion of votes against the person filing the petition and that the person declared the winner fails to meet the legal requirement to be returned as a winner.
Tribunal judgments are appealable.
Litigants who are dissatisfied with rulings delivered by election tribunals or courts of first instance can appeal such judgments as a matter of constitutional right. Appeals arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of a presidential election shall be heard by the Supreme Court, which is the Court of last resort. In contrast, appeals against the decision of a Governorship election tribunal lie to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter. Lastly, appeals on National and State Assembly election tribunal judgments are filed at the Court of Appeal, which is the final Court for all appeals related to legislative elections.
While the recourse to an unelected body of judges to resolve election disputes signals increasing faith in the judicial process, it also exposes the desperation of politicians to exploit the litigation process to clinch electoral victory. Without good judges, the aspiration of advancing electoral justice and political legitimacy may be thwarted. Charles Evans Huges, in his presidential address to the American Bar Association, described a good judge as: –
“An honest, high-minded, able and fearless judge is, therefore, the most servant of democracy, for he illuminates justice as he interprets and applies the law; as he makes clear the benefits and shortcomings of the standards of individual and community rights amongst a free people.”
May good judges rise when it matters most to enforce the will of the people expressed through the ballot box.
Samson Itodo is an election, democracy, and public policy enthusiast. Itodo serves as the Executive Director of Yiaga Africa. He is also a Board member of the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Board of Advisers of International IDEA.
Please send comments and feedback to sitodo@yiaga.org. He tweets @DSamsonItodo.
The Progressive Students Movement (PSM), a leading Pan-African student body, has commended the leadership of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) in Ogun State under Commissioner of Police (CP) Lanre Ogunlowo, PhD, for its commitment to security and community engagement.
In a statement released on Thursday, the President of PSM Nigeria, Comrade Ambassador Okereafor Bestman, highlighted the CP’s efforts in strengthening collaboration between the police, stakeholders, and other security agencies to maintain peace and stability in the state.
“It is worthy of note that CP Lanre Ogunlowo, PhD, has further fostered a harmonious working synergy between the police, stakeholders, and other security agents aimed at ensuring peace and tranquility in Ogun State,” Okereafor said.
The student leader expressed confidence in CP Ogunlowo’s leadership, stating that Ogun State is on track to becoming one of the most peaceful states in Nigeria under his administration.
He also praised the professionalism and dedication of the Ogun State Police Command in tackling crime, regardless of its scale.
Additionally, PSM acknowledged the Ogun State government’s continued support for security agencies, particularly in providing mobility and logistics to enhance their operational efficiency.
The commendation comes at a time when security remains a top priority for residents and authorities in the state, with ongoing efforts to curb crime and ensure public safety.
BY ABUBAKAR YUSUF
On assumption of duty in January, 2025 , the new Universal Basic Education Commission, UBEC, Boss and well grounded World Bank expert , Aisha Garba envisaged the need to reposition the Basic Education through interfacing with the critical stakeholders.
Amongst them is the office of the National Security Adviser , NSA, led by Malam Nuhu Ribadu whose achievements in the last few years in the area of security has become distinct and outstanding.
Therefore, seeking to cooperate and collaborate with the office became germane and needful particularly the protection of lives and properties of actors in the promotion of Basic Education ranging from the pupils , teachers , workers and facilitators to enable it drive the new wave to curb Out of School Children OOSC in the country.
Aside providing the basic security arrangements for schools , the need to engage the security apparatus at the level of National Security Adviser NSA became needful, so as to address the sophistry of security problems in the country, to nip in the bud any unforseen circumstances.
With the high rates of kidnappings, abduction , banditry, cattle rustling, ritual tendencies among many other vices, the idea of bringing on board , the security architecture of the country in all ramifications will assist the commission to consolidate the implementation of Basic Education policies and programs, also introduce new ones .
Since pupils at the Primary, Junior Secondary and Secondary Schools are prone to such ugly development and security issues , the need to be proactive on the part of the commission became timely and desiring.
This led to the success story of the bilateral interface between the management of the commission and NSA, to streamline, perfect and chart a new course on the issue of security of actors in the Basic Education.
The visit described as timely and long overdue, discussed fruitfully the way forward and the immediate and long term intervention of both agencies in the area of collaboration.
According to the Executive Secretary, Universal Basic Education Commission UBEC, Dr Aisha Garba she stated by discussing” strategic initiatives aimed at enhancing educational access and security in Nigeria. ”
She further said” the engagement focused on strategies to address challenges such as the safety of schools, particularly in vulnerable regions, and the promotion of equitable education for all children.”
“the meeting highlighted the critical intersection between education and national security and the need for collaboration between UBEC and Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), on improving access to basic education and safety of safety schools across the nation. ”
“This collaboration underscores the government’s commitment to fostering a secure and inclusive learning environment as part of its broader agenda to strengthen the nation’s educational framework,” it added.
“UBEC boss had pledged to engage critical stakeholders to break down barriers to education and create inclusive learning opportunities for children across the six geopolitical regions of the country.”
“She said: “My goal is to deliver on this mandate which includes strengthening collaboration, partnerships and institutional learning for effective service delivery. ”
“Together, we will work to increase access, improve quality, provide conducive and safe learning environments, supply adequate teaching and learning materials, and adopt the concept of ‘best fit’ in addressing specific basic education challenges, state by state and region by region”.
Highlights of the program which included the engagement of both bodies with a commitment to ensure the introduction of security architecture in schools in Nigeria is achievable.
Written BY ABUBAKAR YUSUF on yus.abubakar3@gmail.com.
By Stephen Adewale
This rejoinder is a response to a column that graced the pages of the Nigerian Tribune on March 16, 2025, titled “Nasir El-Rufai and the Philosophy of Nothing.” The piece was penned by none other than Festus Adedayo, one of my cherished wordsmiths, a maestro of prose whose pen drips with both wit and wisdom.
Adedayo has long held a prime spot in my literary affections for reasons beyond mere admiration. First, we both hail from the illustrious Akure Oloyemekun, a shared heritage that makes his brilliance a source of personal pride. There is something uniquely gratifying about watching a kinsman wield the pen with such devastating elegance, weaving words as effortlessly as a bard conjuring magic. Second, in an era where original thinkers are as scarce as rain in the heart of harmattan, Adedayo stands tall as a relic of intellectual abundance. His columns have, for years, been my weekly ritual, a delectable dish of analysis served with just the right amount of audacity.
Regrettably, the unrelenting demands of academia had deprived me of Adedayo’s literary ambrosia for the past three weeks. Resolute in my quest for redemption, I consecrated my Sunday morning to devouring Adedayo’s recent columns, much like a parched wanderer stumbling upon an oasis of forbidden wisdom. And then, lo and behold, the last paragraph of the aforementioned column stopped me in my tracks. It was not just a paragraph; it was a gauntlet thrown, a provocation that demanded and commanded a response. And so, here I am, pen in hand, ready to engage.
In the preceding paragraphs, Adedayo took great pains to dissect El-Rufai’s defection to the SDP, wielding the philosophy of nothingness like a sculptor chiselling away at what he believed to be a futile political move. He argued, with the confidence of a man who has peered into the future, that El-Rufai’s new political adventure would amount to precisely nothing. Fair enough. He is entitled to his opinions, and I bear him no grudge for his gloomy prophecy. After all, time is the ultimate arbiter of political fortunes.
However, just when one thought the column was a masterclass in political critique, Adedayo took a reckless detour in the final paragraph, committing what can only be described as a literary felony. In one fell swoop, he attempted a hatchet job on the political integrity of SDP’s 2023 Presidential Candidate, Adewole Adebayo. Quoting him, he said ‘my excitement at the potentials of SDP as a viable opposition suffered a momentary halt almost immediately that same last week. Adewole Adebayo, 2023 presidential candidate…had come on an interview session on a national television. I had heard of his trumped up brilliance from journalists who earlier interviewed him.’
To begin with, Adedayo’s statement exposes one of two possibilities; either he is woefully out of touch with the political landscape or he is deliberately peddling falsehoods in service of some unseen paymaster. Or how else can one explain his audacious claim that he had never encountered Adewole Adebayo’s interviews on national television before the week in question?
Adebayo has been a towering presence in the public space since January 2022, when he declared his presidential ambition. He has graced national television countless times, dissecting policies with the precision of a seasoned statesman, not merely critiquing but offering well-reasoned alternatives. His interviews have been clipped, shared, and dissected across social media, yet Festus Adedayo, an otherwise astute columnist, would have us believe that he only stumbled upon Adebayo’s rhetoric through second hand whispers from journalist friends. The claim is as implausible as it is suspicious, making one wonder if his sudden epiphany was less of an honest discovery and more of a scripted hit job.
Then he went on to claim that ‘at that interview session, gradually, Adebayo defrosted all those superlatives with which he was robed. By the time the interview session ended, in place of a huge turkey with huge feathers I expected to encounter, I was left with a species of hen Yoruba call “Adiye opipi”. This type of hen is known by a unique characteristic of featherless wings. Adebayo came across as this and much more. I saw a man who delights in a horse ride that takes place on the back of a cockroach. When you see such politicians, your mind races to a spent canister.’
There is a Yoruba adage that warns, “Ibi tó yẹ ká tíbá ọgbọ́n, a ò gbùdó bá àgò nbẹ,” meaning that where one expects wisdom, it would be a grave disappointment to find foolishness instead. Unfortunately, this perfectly captures the bewildering blunder committed by Festus Adedayo.
One would assume that a seasoned columnist of his caliber would back his scathing critique with substance. At least a direct quote or a reference to the supposedly underwhelming statement that shattered his lofty expectations of Adewole Adebayo would suffice. Yet, in a display of either intellectual laziness or calculated deception, Adedayo offers none.
Since he conveniently avoids mentioning the specific interview that triggered his so-called disappointment, and given that Adebayo only appeared on Arise TV’s breakfast show during the week in question, it is clear that Adedayo was referring to that particular session. However, rather than provide any real context, he chose to shroud the event in ambiguity, hoping to mislead the unsuspecting public. Since he won’t do the honours, it is only right to offer a brief, unvarnished account of what truly transpired during the interview he so artfully distorted.
A few days before the said interview, Ayo of Arise TV blatantly misled viewers by falsely claiming that Adewole Adebayo had betrayed his supporters before the 2023 elections, endorsing President Tinubu and urging his followers to do the same. She went further, labelling him a politician devoid of principle.
When Adebayo finally appeared on Arise TV, he firmly set the record straight. He ran the race to the very end, never endorsed Tinubu, and never worked for the APC government, despite numerous inducements. He rightfully demanded an apology, but Ayo stood her ground. However, when the Arise TV crew presented what they called “evidence,” it backfired spectacularly, proving Adebayo right and exposing their deception. It was a textbook case of attempted character assassination gone embarrassingly wrong.
So, this was the interview that left Festus Adedayo “disappointed” in Adebayo, an interview where a man stood his ground against blatant falsehoods. When a self-proclaimed crusader of truth suddenly finds fault in someone defending himself against lies, perhaps it’s time to scrutinise the so-called champion of integrity. When a supposed high priest of truth suddenly takes issue with a man standing firm against lies, perhaps the high priest’s own altar is due for inspection.
Rather than call out Arise TV for their desperate attempt at character assassination, our esteemed “writer of truth” chose the path of deception by conveniently omitting the actual events. Instead of holding liars accountable, he doubled down, subtly trying to drag a principled man deeper into the mud. If this is what passes for truth-telling, then perhaps Festus Adedayo has been writing fiction all along.
Festus Adedayo, in his infinite journalistic wisdom, managed to compress the entire essence of a man’s political ideology, years of intellectual engagement, and national contributions into the span of one interview. A man whose intellectual sagacity had only been whispered to him in passing by his journalist friends, yet he deemed himself qualified to pass a grand verdict!
His article, ostensibly about the SDP, quickly revealed itself as something else entirely; a well-tailored hit piece, stitched together with just enough cynicism to fulfill the desires of some lurking, unnamed paymaster. He spent paragraph after paragraph dismissing the SDP as an unworthy alternative, regardless of who joined, and then, as the grand finale, he wielded his last paragraph like a dagger to stab the reputation of the very man who has kept the party afloat since 2023. If there was ever a masterclass in agenda-driven writing disguised as political analysis, Adedayo just delivered it with the precision of a seasoned mercenary.
Criticism, when wielded with sincerity, serves as a scalpel, precise, constructive, and capable of refining its subject. But when used recklessly, it becomes a sledgehammer, destructive, indiscriminate, and serving no purpose beyond ruin. At a time when Nigeria teeters on the edge of existential crises, what we need are columnists who illuminate the path forward, not those who revel in the theatrics of demolition.
This is why it is profoundly disheartening to see Festus Adedayo, once a beacon in the murky waters of Nigerian columnists, take a detour into the alley of agenda-peddling. Nigeria is not merely in need of critics; it is in need of honest critics. It is in need of voices that challenge, correct, and inspire, not those who merely regurgitate the cynicism that has already poisoned our media space.
I have always admired Festus Adedayo, but his portrayal of Adewole Adebayo is a painful reminder that even the brightest stars can flicker. To watch someone we once held as a paragon of journalistic integrity stumble into the company of the ethically compromised is not just disappointing, it is a national tragedy. If even the ‘good ones’ can abandon sincerity for sensationalism, then truly, the night is darker than we feared.
*Stephen Adewale writes from the Department of History, Obafemi Awolowo University*