Former President Goodluck Jonathan has criticized Nigeria’s legal system, urging the National Assembly to strip the Supreme Court of its role in governorship election appeals.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Speaking in Abuja on Wednesday at the 70th birthday of Senator Gbenga Daniel, Jonathan argued that the current three-tier litigation process is a “waste of time” that leaves the will of voters in limbo for too long.
The “One-Stop Shop” Proposal
Jonathan’s solution is the creation of a dedicated Constitutional Court. He proposed that Nigeria adopt a model used in many Francophone countries, where a single, specialized court handles all election disputes in one phase—bypassing tribunals, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.
“We need to create a Constitutional Court to handle election matters,” Jonathan said. “If we must keep the Supreme Court involved, then let’s scrap the lower tribunals and start and end cases at the apex level.”
Criticism of Legal Technicalities
The former president also criticized the use of technicalities to overturn election results. He recalled a case from the 2011 election cycle in which a candidate was disqualified because of the color of ink used by voters.
“Imagine unseating someone because they used black or green ink instead of red,” he said, highlighting what he described as an overemphasis on minor procedural issues rather than the actual votes cast.
“Referees Who Look the Other Way”
Using a football analogy, Jonathan described judges as referees of democracy. He warned that when they ignore electoral malpractice or focus excessively on technicalities, they indirectly encourage politicians to manipulate the system.
Debate Ahead of 2027 Elections
The call for reform comes as Nigeria begins implementing updates tied to the 2026 Electoral Act. While some lawmakers have praised Jonathan’s proposal as practical, others in the legal community fear a Constitutional Court could add another layer of bureaucracy.
As the 2027 election cycle approaches, his remarks have reignited a key debate: should courts determine electoral outcomes, or should the will of voters prevail?
Kindly share
