The final resolution of the appeals contesting the outcome of the last governorship election in Ondo State highlights the bane of gratuitous litigation in Nigerian society. After several months of legal battle, the respective appeals were struck out by the apex courts after their formal withdrawals.

Counsel for the candidate of the Social Democratic Party, Bamidele Akingboye, explained that the move was necessitated by the death of his client. On his part, Agboola Ajayi of the Peoples Democratic Party stated that he withdrew his appeal after consultations with his party stakeholders. He maintained that the decision was taken in the interest of peace and stability in Ondo State.

While Ajayi’s action is commendable, the factors that purportedly influenced his decision are far-fetched. Why did he not carry out proper consultation before instituting the case ab initio? How did the pendency of the case undermine the peace and stability of Ondo State? Was the decision motivated by a lack of confidence in the merits of the case?

The legal battle began when Ajayi challenged the declaration of Lucky Aiyedatiwa’s victory at the Ondo State Governorship Election Tribunal. He faulted the verdict of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the allegations that the election was marred by irregularities and not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

However, the Election Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that Ajayi failed to substantiate his claims. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as the judgment of the Tribunal was upheld. Undaunted, Ajayi sought the intervention of the final arbiter, but surprisingly halted the process midway for non-compelling reasons. Again, why he chose to discontinue the matter despite the substantial costs and time invested in prosecuting it up to that stage is questionable.

It would be recalled that earlier in March, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a separate appeal Ajayi filed contesting the competence of the joint ticket of Lucky Aiyedatiwa and his running mate in the election, Olayide Adelami, for want of merit. The court held that the appeal was filed out of time and that Ajayi, as a non-member of the APC, lacked the locus standi to contest the internal affairs of the party. Suffice it to say that both his pre- and post-election petitions were found to be unmeritorious by the respective courts.

This strongly creates the impression of professional indolence or incompetence on the part of his legal team. Every qualified Nigerian lawyer is presumed to know that pre- and post-election petitions are bound.  For instance, Section 285(11) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “An appeal from a decision in a pre-election matter shall be filed within 14 days from the date of delivery of the judgment appealed against.”

The constitution did not extend this period, and by implication, any pre-election appeal filed out of time is incurably defective. Similarly, it is trite that the internal affairs of a political party are generally not justiciable, and where actionable in exceptional cases, only members of the party can seek judicial remedies. It is, therefore, apposite to query whether Ajayi conducted any pre-litigation due diligence.

The importance of pre-action due diligence in election and politically related matters cannot be trivialised. Such a preliminary step enables potential litigants to assess, evaluate, and weigh the merits, strengths, and weaknesses of their case. At this stage, quality evidence is gathered, potential witnesses are interviewed and selected, and potential risks, defences, cross-petitions, and liabilities are identified for informed decisions on whether or not to proceed with the proposed litigation.

It is doubtful that proper due diligence was undertaken before the judicial process was initiated in the instant case. Admittedly, election petition litigation is a complex and technical procedure with a narrow success pathway – this explains the high failure rate. The entire process appeared rigged against petitioners based on the evidential burden placed on them. Ironically, the complex procedure is why petitioners should be very proactive, vigilant, and prudent in assembling their legal arsenal before seeking judicial remedies.

Nigeria is one of the most litigious nations in the world, and election and politically related matters constitute a significant portion of court cases. In 2023, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, bemoaned the volume of lawsuits emanating from elections in
Nigeria, and the attendant toll on the health of judges.

She lamented that “the cost and negative effect of electoral litigation is becoming worrisome. It is becoming economically alarming that the entire Nigerian judicial system is inundated with electoral litigation and adjudication almost all year round. It is a matter of concern that many judges of the trial court have been engaged … in the exclusive management of electoral cases. The implication is that commercial matters … industrial disputes and land matters, which when determined in good time could create jobs and release cash flow into the economy, are tied down in court registries.”

The courts are not platforms for frivolous or vexatious matters, as judicial proceedings are formal and serious, with significant consequences for the parties involved. Emotions or sentiments have no place in the court of law. It should be contemptuous for a party to file a matter without merits or credible evidence (because what you know is different from what you can prove) or a matter that is patently statute-barred.

Nigerian courts treat election or political matters with priority at the detriment of cases involving ordinary citizens. Political actors are leveraging this privilege by barraging the courts with petitions, however trivial. The electoral process is heavily judicialised, as nearly every loser now “goes to court” even without justifiable cause.

The consequences of frivolous election petitions are grave and far-reaching. They slow governance, destabilise the political landscape, adversely impact the national economy, strain the already overwhelmed judicial system, deprive other litigants of speedy trials, etc.

In the overriding interest of the nation, political candidates should embrace the spirit of comradeship and learn to accept defeat in good faith. Election results should only be challenged when there is a reasonable cause to do so with cogent evidence.