By Deji Adeysnju
Abuja. Legal practitioner and activist, Deji Adeyanju, has defended the role of the judiciary in determining electoral disputes, arguing that judicial oversight remains a constitutional necessity in Nigeria’s democracy.
In a statement, Adeyanju cited Sections 6, 239 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which vest election tribunals and appellate courts with the authority to adjudicate disputes arising from governorship and presidential elections.
According to him, suggestions that courts should not determine electoral outcomes amount to asking the judiciary to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities.
“The courts do not conduct elections; they determine whether elections were conducted in accordance with the law,” he stated, warning that without judicial scrutiny, electoral irregularities and fraud could go unchecked.
Adeyanju referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (Western State), where the apex court rejected attempts by the military government to insulate its actions from judicial review, describing the ruling as a landmark affirmation of judicial authority.
He further argued that Nigeria’s political environment makes judicial intervention indispensable, alleging that political actors, parties and even electoral authorities often create situations that necessitate court action.
Adeyanju noted that several political figures, including Adams Oshiomhole, Rotimi Amaechi, Olusegun Mimiko, and Peter Obi, reclaimed their mandates through judicial pronouncements.
“The problem is not that courts determine the outcome of elections; it is that political actors create circumstances that require their intervention,” he said.
While acknowledging concerns about judicial compromise in electoral cases, Adeyanju called for reforms aimed at strengthening the integrity of the justice system rather than limiting the courts’ jurisdiction.
He advocated an impartial, merit-based appointment process for judges to bolster public confidence in the adjudication of electoral matters.
“In a constitutional democracy, the courts remain the last line of defence against arbitrariness. Weakening them will do us no good,” he added.
