The Judiciary and the Ballot Box: A Case Study of Controversial Elections in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic

Abstract

This study investigates the complex relationship between the judiciary and electoral integrity in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, with particular focus on three landmark judicial decisions: Uzodinma v. Ihedioha (2019), Lawan v. Machina (2023), and the Akpabio dual candidacy case (2023). While elections are meant to reflect the popular will, Nigeria's electoral process is increasingly mediated by courtrooms, where political outcomes are decided through litigation rather than the ballot box. The study’s objective is to examine the judiciary’s role in resolving disputed elections and its impact on democratic integrity in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Drawing on the theory of the judicialization of politics, the paper argues that judicial interventions—though constitutionally empowered—often conflict with the spirit of electoral law and democratic norms. Through critical analysis of statutory provisions and court rulings, the study reveals how legal technicalities, elite influence, and institutional weaknesses have enabled the judiciary to become a contested site of political power. The cases reviewed show recurring patterns of judicial overreach, inconsistencies in legal interpretation, and the subversion of electoral justice, thereby eroding public trust in both the judiciary and democratic institutions. The paper concludes by advocating for reforms to enhance judicial independence, clarify electoral adjudication procedures, and strengthen the regulatory role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to safeguard
Nigeria’s democratic consolidation.