*Says Technicalities Aiding Fraudulent Democratic Processes In Nigeria
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/NBBSPIDEL.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, has expressed concern over the judiciary’s role in hindering access to electoral justice in Nigeria. In a thought-provoking statement, Okutepa highlighted the challenges faced by petitioners seeking redress for electoral disputes in the country.
Okutepa noted that despite the establishment of Election Petition Tribunals under Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution and the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, which empower the Federal High Court to decide pre-election matters, the judiciary appears to have effectively blocked access to electoral justice through its judgments. He pointed out that appeals in both pre and post-election matters go in most cases to the Supreme Court, except for post-election disputes in National and State Houses of Assembly, which terminate at the Court of Appeal.
The Senior Advocate explained that the reasons parliament gives jurisdiction to the judiciary to determine these electoral disputes are not far-fetched. It is believed and assumed that the judiciary, being an unbiased arbiter, will ensure that democracy is not truncated by political hoodlums and rascals, and will decide electoral disputes without fear or favor, affection or ill will. Judges are not politicians, and partiality is not an attribute of judicial officers.
Parliament reasoned that the judiciary is best suited to call political actors to order and act as a check to ensure that the will of the people, which is the basis of any legitimacy in the electoral context, is not undermined. The judiciary was therefore expected to team up with the people in adjudications so that the mandates of the people are not snatched by processes that lack legitimacy.
Unfortunately, the experiences over the years have shown that despite these laudable legislative initiatives, political impositions and rascality, which are contrary to democratic norms, always get judicial stamp of legitimacy in most cases. It is observed with profound respect that despite the laudable legislative interventions to give justice to victims of electoral frauds and manipulations in Nigeria, the judiciary appears to have effectively blocked access to electoral justice by the kind of judgments it gives in most cases in electoral jurisprudence in Nigeria.
The roadblocks to justice in electoral jurisprudence are based on bad judicial precedents set, which have enabled political actors to rig and bypass due process with audacity of arrogance and impunity. These precedents have enabled electoral rascality to thrive in the most barbaric manner in the Nigerian brand of democracy. These precedents acquired notoriety from 2003 and became more terrible under the 2015 to 2023 general elections in Nigeria.
The concepts of demonstration of documents, dumping of documents, calling of polling units by polling unit agents, the requirement that certified true copies of public documents must be tendered by the makers, and the now requirement that no subpoenaed witness can testify unless his or her frontloaded statements on oath are filed along with the petitions within the 21 days allowed to file petitions are such judicial precedents that have effectively put spanners in the wheels of electoral justice in Nigeria.
As a lawyer who has consistently prosecuted election petition cases for “losers” over the years, Okutepa’s experience shows him that no matter the volume of evidence, the judiciary appears to have taken a stand and seems to be siding with the people who have no regard and respect for the sovereignty of the people. This is clear in several decisions that emphasize more on arid anachronistic legal jargon and technicalities that are rooted in caricature justice.
No matter the best efforts by legal practitioners for the petitioners, most decisions hide under what the judiciary calls “sui generis” to cause havoc and deal terrible blows to democratic processes. The judiciary in most cases develops blind eyes to many fraudulent manipulations either because it is overwhelmed or there are some other considerations that are not truly visible for those outside the judicial system to comprehend.
For Okutepa, until the judiciary decides to see wrongs where wrongs are visible even for the blind to see, and then overrule or is prepared to depart from road-blocking precedents it has set, there is no need for anyone to waste time, resources, and energy to file election petitions in Nigeria.
He suggests that everyone who has what it takes to write results should write it and then approach the compromised and commercialized institutions of INEC and security agencies to enter the results on the relevant forms and then announce the “winners.” This way, there will be no need for judicial officers to be moved from their normal stations to Election Petition Tribunals. Judges will then be focused on their normal judicial cases. This will also reduce the waste of state resources to pay huge amounts of money to defend fraudulent electoral victories. There are some people who are experts in blocking access to electoral justice and are making huge money from petitions filed who don’t deserve this money.
It is therefore Okutepa’s proposal to all “losers” of elections in Nigeria not to waste time and resources to file election petitions because it is easier for an elephant to go through the eye of a needle than for anyone who was robbed of victories in Nigerian elections to get immediate remedies and electoral justice. Technicalities are now being used to aid and abet the fraudulent democratic processes in Nigeria. This is the reality of the matter.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
