Odinkalu seeks review of judicial reversal of voters’ mandates

Chidi Odinkalu, a human rights lawyer and activist, has criticized the Nigerian judiciary for using the "wasted votes" doctrine in electoral disputes. He believes this practice undermines the mandates given to politicians by voters and effectively represents a coup on the people. Odinkalu highlighted this during the third edition of the Tunji Braithwaite Symposium in Lagos, which focused on the judiciary's role in electoral integrity in Nigeria.

He expressed particular concern over judicial decisions that led to the cancellation of election results after citizens had exercised their franchise.

Odinkalu cited the 2019 Zamfara State governorship election as an example, where the Supreme Court overturned the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC) based on the "wasted votes" doctrine. Despite the APC securing 72% of the votes, the court awarded the victory to a candidate who only received 22%. Odinkalu questioned the basis for this decision, noting that judges who had never voted were declaring citizens' votes as wasted.

He also criticized the 2007 Rivers State governorship dispute, suggesting that the Supreme Court should have ordered the return of the candidate removed from the ballot rather than awarding victory to an unrepresented candidate. Additionally, Odinkalu criticized the Court of Appeal's handling of election petitions from the 2023 elections in Plateau State, where the court used the "wasted votes" doctrine to overturn victories for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and grant seats to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Odinkalu attributed the problems in the judicial system partly to the process of appointing judges, alleging that political and personal considerations influenced some appointments. He expressed concern over the growing involvement of courts in political disputes, which is reducing the judiciary's ability to handle regular cases and contributing to the rise of non-state actors in dispute resolution.

Odinkalu warned that the judicial system's casualization and the speed at which political cases are handled are increasingly outpacing regular cases. He advocated for a review of the distinction between pre-election and post-election litigation and changes to remedies when courts nullify elections, suggesting that in such cases, the matter should be returned to the electorate.