Judicial Delays and Prolonged Electoral Litigation in Nigeria: Urgent Need for Legislative Intervention

Abstract

Electoral litigation in Nigeria has become a persistent challenge, with delays in the resolution of election petitions undermining the credibility of electoral outcomes and weakening democratic stability. Although the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended) and the Electoral Act 2026 prescribe timelines for filing, adjudication, and appeals, practical challenges such as procedural bottlenecks and interlocutory applications have prevented timely resolution. Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, legislative authority is vested in the National Assembly (Sections 4 and 58), including the power to make laws regulating elections and judicial procedure. Prolonged litigation creates governance uncertainty, erodes public confidence in electoral institutions, and fosters political tension. To address judicial delays and prolonged electoral litigation, this brief, therefore, recommends the following: 1. The National Assembly, through the Senate and House Committees on Judiciary, and the Committee of Electoral Matters, may consider undertaking effective oversight of the National Judicial Council in order to ensure that the courts/ tribunals adhere to procedural timelines for election petitions, including filing, adjudication, and appeals. This may be done through the office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to ensure that all electoral disputes are conclusively resolved before the inauguration of elected officials. This reform should establish clear deadlines for each stage of the process, limit opportunities for frivolous or dilatory motions, and provide statutory mechanisms for enforcement. 2. The National Assembly through Senate and House Committees on Electoral Matters should strengthen their oversight of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to ensure timely release of relevant electoral materials required by litigants to effectively pursue their cases. This is because the bureaucratic bottlenecks and high cost of accessing these materials constitute serious impediment to effective pursuit of cases especially as the onus of prove rests on the plaintiff.