On Wednesday, 9 April 2025, Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) launched a report titled, “From Ballot to the Courts: Analysis of Election Petition Litigation from Nigeria’s 2023 General Elections.”
The report offers a comprehensive analysis of the judgments delivered by the Election Petition Tribunals, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court over petitions arising from the general elections held in February and March 2023. It critically examines the outcomes of election petition litigation, evaluating them against the backdrop of Nigeria’s legal framework, including the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Electoral Act, 2022.
The objective of this report is to provide evidence-based insight on the judgments of the Courts and Tribunals, as well as their interpretation and application of the provisions of the law. With this report, PLAC aims to promote understanding of the process of election dispute resolution and support ongoing discussions on electoral reforms.
One of the most striking findings is the high failure rate of election petitions. At the Election Petition Tribunal, 88.9% of the 895 Tribunal cases analyzed failed, while only 11.1% were successful. Similarly, at the Court of Appeal, 79.4% of 588 election appeals failed, with only 20.9% succeeding. This trend of unsuccessful petitions raises concerns about the effectiveness of the electoral dispute resolution system in Nigeria.
In terms of the trends for dismissal, 73.1% of cases were dismissed due to the finding that the burden of proof was not discharged; 14.7% of petitions were dismissed for procedural reasons; 8.5% were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction over cases considered to be pre-election matters; and 3.7% was dismissed due to lack of legal standing of the petitioner to file a petition.
Jurisdictional and procedural issues were significant barriers in many cases. For instance, there were instances where parties who did not contest the elections filed petitions. This usually followed from lengthy pre-election litigation that saw disputes over candidacy being unresolved until after the election. The court’s position on this is that where a pre-election dispute as to who a party’s candidate should be was not determined until after the election, the affected political party is deemed not to have a candidate at the election and a petition cannot be filed by any candidate from that party. Some petitioners continued to raise unlawful exclusion as a ground for filing petitions, even though this had been removed from the Electoral Act, 2022, as a valid basis. These issues highlight a need for more robust clarification on the right to bring an action (locus standi) in election-related matters.
Furthermore, the report identified various procedural failures, such as non-compliance with the law and rules of court on filing petitions and failure to adhere to timelines. The most prominent was the requirement for petitioners to frontload the written statements of subpoenaed witnesses within the 21 days given to file petitions, which many lawyers deem to be unfair and unrealistic.
Another key observation was the confusion surrounding the jurisdiction of Election Petition tribunals to hear petitions bordering on the nomination, sponsorship, qualification, and disqualification of candidates. Several petitioners raised pre-election matters relating to party nominations at the tribunals, contrary to the provisions of both the Constitution and the Electoral Act, which stipulate that such matters should be addressed before the election. This was the most contentious issue observed in the petitions and led to the majority of the conflicting judgments by the courts and tribunals, further complicating the legal landscape.
The burden and standard of proof in election petitions emerged as a major challenge. Petitioners struggled to meet the high legal requirements for proving their cases, particularly in obtaining critical documentary evidence from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Litigants faced difficulties in presenting oral testimony and in securing necessary documents like the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines and data. The reconfiguration of the data on the machine by INEC in the three-weeks interval between the federal level elections in February 2023 and the state level elections in March 2023, meant that the machines had no real evidential value at the time of hearing, yet the Supreme court still ruled that the machines must be physically brought to court while the lower courts issued several conflicting rulings on the matter.
Additionally, there was widespread confusion about the legal status of electronic transmission of results and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), further complicating the evidentiary process. Petitioners also encountered significant challenges in proving criminal allegations, overvoting and voter disenfranchisement, and in applying the new provision in section 137 of the Electoral Act that sought to address the challenge of dumping of documentary evidence.
In terms of INEC’s role in election petitions, the Commission exhibited a largely passive attitude toward the litigation process caused by the legal “presumption of regularity” of election results and belief that a “perfect” election is unattainable. This, however, did not stop the Commission in some cases, from defending petitions and filing appeals – an action seen as partisan and an abuse of the court process. In several instances, INEC failed to produce required documents for petitioners leading to the failure of the petition. These actions have further contributed to the erosion of trust in the process.
Based on these findings, the report offers several recommendations aimed at improving the election petition process. Among the key recommendations is the adjustment of procedural requirements to ensure fairness and clarity, particularly regarding the frontloading of written statements on oath for subpoenaed witnesses. The report also calls for a review of Section 135(1) of the Electoral Act which requires that there must be substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Act before an election is invalidated.
Further recommendations include reconsidering the standard of proof required for criminal allegations in election petitions to strike a balance between the legal requirements and the practicalities of proving such claims “beyond reasonable doubt.” Clarity is also needed in the law regarding the legal status of electronic transmission of results and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), which has become a critical tool in verifying election results.
The report also proposes for INEC to bear the burden of proof in election petitions. This would ensure that the Commission is held accountable for its role in the election process and compels it to cooperate more fully with the judicial process. Additionally, consequences should be imposed for INEC’s failure to comply with court orders, particularly in relation to the submission of documents and other crucial evidence.
To address delays in the election petition process, the report recommends abridging timelines for pre-election matters and reducing the levels of appeal, with the aim of resolving disputes before the swearing-in of candidates. There is also a call to reconsider the timeline for the post-election adjudicatory process to ensure that matters are concluded promptly, preventing delays in the assumption of office by elected candidates.
Strengthening the capacity and independence of the judiciary is also essential, as is the sanctioning of errant judicial officers to address the spate conflicting judgments. These would help to promote consistency and fairness in election-related rulings. Additionally, there is a need to strengthen political party processes, particularly in the recruitment and training of polling agents, who are indispensable as key witnesses in election petitions.
The report also integrates an online database that provides easy access to summaries of petitions and judgments, offering a view of the litigation process and judicial outcomes. This database provides legal professionals, researchers, and the public with a curated collection of decisions of the Election Petition Tribunals, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court arising from post-election litigation across the country.
The full report, along with an online repository of case summaries and certified true copies of the judgments analysed, is available on a dedicated website at https://electioncases.placlibrary.org/.
We invite members of the press and the public to engage with the findings and insights contained in the publication.
