Former President Goodluck Jonathan has issued a stark warning that Nigeria’s escalating reliance on courts to settle election disputes is fundamentally undermining the country’s democratic foundations. Speaking at the 2026 Democracy Dialogue organised by his Foundation in Bauchi on Tuesday, Jonathan characterised the phenomenon as anomalous compared to electoral practices across the African continent, where ballot outcomes typically stand without protracted judicial intervention.
Jonathan recalled a telling exce with a former Deputy President of South Africa during his time as vice president that highlighted how unusual Nigeria’s situation has become. The South African leader expressed genuine bewilderment at the Nigerian practice of routinely challenging election results through litigation. In South Africa and most other African democracies, according to Jonathan, defeated candidates accept electoral outcomes rather than seeking remedy through the courts. Nigeria stands apart, he argued, because election litigation has become so deeply embedded in the political culture that parties now factor potential court battles into their electoral strategies from the outset.
While acknowledging the necessity of judicial independence and the prosecution of genuine criminal offences during elections, Jonathan expressed concern that public confidence in politically charged court judgments has noticeably eroded. He suggested that in highly controversial cases, returning the matter to voters through fresh elections might better serve democratic principles than allowing courts to make final determinations. The former president emphasised that some electoral disputes have become unnecessarily politicised and subjected to excessive litigation that serves neither justice nor democratic ility.
Jonathan directed particular criticism at what he described as growing judicial encroachment into the internal governance of political parties. Courts now regularly determine not only who should be recognised as a party’s candidate following disputed primaries but also, in some instances, which faction should be recognised as the legitimate political party itself. This judicial activism, he argued, creates profound uncertainty in Nigeria’s political environment and disrupts the natural order of democratic processes. Political parties should retain primary responsibility for selecting their candidates through internal mechanisms, he insisted, warning that excessive judicial intervention has fundamentally altered the balance that sustains healthy democratic systems.
Describing democracy as a complex ecosystem requiring careful balance among multiple actors, Jonathan outlined the interconnected roles of political parties, electoral bos, security agencies, the judiciary, civil society, the media, election observers and voters. Each institution carries distinct responsibilities that must function harmoniously for democracy to thrive. When courts assume outsized responsibility for determining political outcomes, the entire ecosystem becomes distorted and less effective at delivering legitimate governance that commands public confidence.
Looking ahead, Jonathan’s intervention signals growing unease among Nigerian political veterans about the sustainability of current electoral practices. His call for significantly reducing electoral disputes and restoring confidence in both elections and judicial decisions represents a challenge to political elites, judicial authorities and electoral officials alike. Whether Nigeria can break its cycle of litigation and develop stronger democratic norms remains an open question, but Jonathan’s warning suggests the stakes are high. Without reform, the country risks cementing a model of democracy where courts rather than voters have the final say, a development that could further erode public faith in institutions already struggling with legitimacy deficits.
Leave a comment