From Courtroom to Compromise: How Nigeria’s Judiciary Is Failing Democracy.

When election petition judgments are driven by political outcomes rather than legal reasoning, the judiciary risks losing public trust and democratic relevance. In dismissing valid petitions with weak logic, our courts are slowly writing democracy out of the equation.  

Let’s be honest: the judiciary is under strain, and Nigeria’s democracy is feeling it. When courts begin to sound more like echo chambers for political interests than impartial channels of justice, something has gone awry.  When an arbiter becomes an interested party in a case, justice starts to lose its integrity. And in the context of election petitions, where the legitimacy of democratic choice is at stake, the implications are profound. This essay is about the difficulty of writing a Judgment after reaching a Compromised Decision.

Judicial rulings in such cases should reflect the highest standards of objectivity and legal reasoning. Instead, they have become burdensome exercises in justifying predetermined outcomes. The difficulty lies not in applying the law but in rationalising decisions reached through compromise. That is what this essay addresses – finding the appropriate legal ground to justify a predetermined decision in election petitions is now a judicial headache in Nigeria.    

Take, for example, the recent dismissal of Dr. Asue Ighodalo’s petition against INEC and the APC candidate. The reasoning provided by both the tribunal and the Court of Appeal fails to meet the standard expected of courts of record. When the burden of proof rests on the petitioner, it doesn’t mean they must parade a specific witness. Proof can come in many forms, provided it meets the required standard. Yet, that fundamental principle was conveniently overlooked.  

These rulings aren't about the strength of the evidence. They revolve around protecting a system built on patronage and entitlement, where political victory outweighs legal truth. And it’s becoming increasingly difficult to conceal. Writing these judgments has become an awkward, even painful process for some on the Bench. You can sense the tension between what the law demands and what political pressure dictates.  

Still, judges are expected to write judgments — plausible or not — offering legal cover for conclusions not grounded in law. This distorts the very purpose of adjudication.  When courts morph into instruments for validating political outcomes rather than adjudicating disputes based on evidence and law, the judiciary inches toward irrelevance. The Bench, by extension, suffers reputational damage, and democracy itself becomes increasingly fragile.  

The President cannot afford to let justice rot on his watch. His performance in other sectors may have momentum, but unless justice progresses alongside it, the entire system will remain out of rhythm. Justice must not only walk; it must speak loudly and clearly. Because if it doesn’t, democracy as we know it in Nigeria is headed straight toward a cliff. Let justice reign.