Edo 2024: INEC, the judiciary and Sam Amadi’s ‘challenge’

Since the September 21 governorship election in Edo State, political discourse in Nigeria have centered on electoral integrity and accountability; how electoral contests should be conducted to reflect the very will of the people and enhance Nigeria’s democratic experience. The Edo governorship election has been widely condemned by both local and international observers on account of the brazen manipulation of the process, especially by the institution responsible for conducting and managing elections in Nigeria, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Attention has focused on the ignoble roles played by political parties and the electoral umpire’s alleged compromise and collusion with a certain political party to arrive at a predetermined end. The latest of such discourse by a panel of experts led by Dr Sam Amadi, the Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, is a frontal challenge to the judiciary to wake up and stop the electoral rot being perpetrated by INEC. It is essentially a call on the judiciary to end INEC’s alleged rascality and recklessness in colluding with politicians to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Addressing the media last week, Dr Amadi, asked among other things: “How should the courts now respond to alleged absurdities and abnormalities by INEC. We are seeing a lot of loss of confidence in the electoral system, we are seeing also that INEC is getting worse, almost more criminal in their undertakings, how should the courts now respond?” he asked.

Dr Amadi’s challenge to the judiciary, coming soon after the expose of INEC’s alleged dishonesty by Martin Obono, Human Rights lawyer and Executive Director of the TAP Initiative, cannot be more apposite considering the fact that the judiciary is gearing to begin hearing the petition(s) by aggrieved parties in the Edo State election.

The position of the panel of eminent thinkers led by the astute Dr. Sam Amadi, should be applauded as a patriotic call to the judiciary to act decisively against electoral malfeasance in the country.

Dr. Amadi’s ‘challenge’ for the judiciary to take a visible stance against election rigging—resonates deeply in a country where cynicism about democratic processes is on the rise.

INEC, the custodian of the electoral process, has frequently been accused of falling short of its mandate; often appearing to be in league with self-serving political elites rather than being a neutral arbiter that ensures fair play and transparency. It is in view of this troubling context, Dr. Amadi’s assertion that “The reason why politicians are now more heroic in manipulating the electoral system is that there’s no deterrence for electoral offenses and manipulation. If courts nullified elections where politicians spent billions to rig, they would be less inclined to bribe INEC or police for electoral results, knowing those results could ultimately be canceled,” is not just insightful but fundamental to the resurgence of democratic values.

When an institution meant to uphold democracy becomes part of the problem, the consequences can be catastrophic. Therefore, the judiciary, often the last bastion against governmental excess, bears the monumental responsibility of adjudicating electoral disputes and punishing those found guilty of electoral malfeasance. Dr. Amadi’s challenge demands that the judiciary not only wakes up but also becomes pro-active in punishing electoral violators—those who undermine the sovereignty of the people through manipulation and fraud.

The concept of a judiciary that stands firm against the tide of political corruption is not mere idealism; it is essential for resetting the moral compass of Nigeria’s political landscape and democracy. Punishing those who rig elections serves as a deterrent and signals intent—a message that the rule of law ultimately prevails over corrupt expediencies. This is how civic trust can begin to be restored among the electorate, who often feel that their votes are meaningless in the face of overwhelming political juggernauts, who treat elections as mere formalities rather than genuine expressions of democratic will.

Moreover, the judiciary’s role in this context goes beyond punitive measures. It must engage in a thorough examination of electoral laws and practices to ensure that they are robust enough to safeguard against rigging and institutional fraud. The emphasis on unnecessarily convoluted electoral procedures should be addressed head-on; laws that exist to protect the democratic process must be simplified, and antiquated practices should be overhauled to reflect the realities of 21st-century governance.

The implications of not addressing these issues are dire. As Dr. Amadi noted: “Look at the voter turnout—just about 20 percent now. It could drop to 10 percent in future elections if voters continue to feel that electoral integrity is compromised. The growing perception is that capturing INEC, judiciary, and security forces has replaced genuine competition at the polls,” Amadi stated.

If institutions like INEC continue to usurp the voices of the populace and the judiciary fails to act, the likelihood of electoral apathy will grow. Citizens will begin to view politics as a game played behind closed doors, resulting in the detachment of the electorate from the political process altogether. Communities will either retreat to silence or, worse, take on a more radical form of opposition that challenges the tenets of peaceful democratic engagement.

The judiciary, therefore, must not only respond to Dr. Amadi’s challenge with seriousness but must also initiate conversations with civil society, legal experts, and political actors to foster a comprehensive and inclusive approach to electoral reform. It is time for the judiciary to show that it can be a champion of democracy, willing to challenge the status quo and promote accountability.

The judiciary stands at a critical juncture where decisive action can restore confidence in the electoral system, galvanize civic engagement, and ultimately fortify Nigeria’s commitment to democratic ideals. It is now time for the judiciary to respond—not with timidity or deferral, but with resolute courage and unwavering commitment to justice and democracy. Only then can we envision a political landscape where the will of the people is genuinely respected and celebrated.

Jane Orobosa writes from Benin City