Anyone who has observed Nigerian history and politics would have anticipated the outcome of Wednesday’s events. Despite the anticipation in some quarters, the process of presidential electoral petition tribunals in Nigeria typically follows a standard script: they deliver a judgment (usually in favor of the incumbent), analysts analyze the verdict for a few days (at most, a week), and daily life goes on without much disruption. Every presidential election since 1999 has faced legal challenges, and each has unfolded in a similar manner. If the tribunal doesn’t rule on substance, it does so on technicalities. In either case, unseating an incumbent is a challenging task.
For Peter Obi of the Labour Party and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), taking their case to the tribunal was a tricky endeavor from the start. Virtually everyone could see the flaws in the election, including Nigerians and foreign observers. However, challenging an election in court doesn’t necessarily mean that someone will be stripped of their ill-gotten gains. Presidential election petitions in Nigeria are determined not based on the integrity of the election process but on the presumption that the declared winner would have won even in the presence of irregularities. Going to court simply formalizes one’s discontent, as failing to do so might be seen as acquiescence and acknowledgment of the election’s legitimacy.
However, this time felt different to many observers, including members of the judiciary and government officials, who sensed a heightened public interest and expectation surrounding the election petition process. People were not just seeking a judgment; they were seeking justice and a sense that something was wrong in the political landscape and could still be corrected. The atmosphere in Nigeria seemed to be ripe for a breakdown of the existing order.
Looking beyond Nigeria, one can observe that the coup d’états happening in different parts of Africa are achieving the “miracle” of abruptly ending oppressive political regimes. In some African countries where military takeovers have occurred, there hasn’t been a widespread lament for the erosion of democracy. Coups may be abominable, but they fulfill the desire for cosmic justice in societies where the political elite have oppressed the masses. The disillusionment with the political system in Nigeria is similar, transcending partisan lines and reflecting a desire for change.
Nigerian politics no longer represents the identities and aspirations of its citizens; it has become a monstrosity that feeds on their hopes, dreams, and collective potential. Ordinary citizens saw the judicial process as a means to challenge the oppressive status quo and achieve justice, but it remains unclear whether the judiciary comprehended the depth of this discontent or viewed the process as a mere technical procedure of interpreting the law.
In response to public criticism, some members of the judiciary have shown resistance rather than introspection. For instance, the Supreme Court responded arrogantly to critics of its recent judgments, and the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria ordered the removal of “all eyes on the judiciary” billboards, suspending officials and disbanding a unit responsible for approving them. Such actions suggest that the moral pressure conveyed by the billboards was effective.
However, the judiciary should recognize that setting “all eyes on the judiciary” signifies a quest for justice, meaning, and righteousness. Ignoring this sentiment will not make it disappear; it will only fuel further distrust in the institution. The Nigerian judiciary must acknowledge the public’s desire for justice and strive to uphold the rule of law, as failure to do so could lead to a time when people turn their eyes away from the judiciary and seek alternative means of achieving justice.