NIGERIA’S democracy is riddled with contradictions. The judiciary, an institution established to protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy, has increasingly become an arbiter of political power. Instead of resolving election disputes, the courts now effectively determine the winners.This unsettling anomaly came into sharp focus at the 2026 Goodluck Jonathan Foundation Democracy Dialogue in Bauchi, where former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan sounded the alarm over the state of Nigeria’s democracy and the urgent need for reform.Their concerns are timely, with the 2027 general elections scheduled for January and February.Ideally, elections should be won and lost at the ballot box. Courts should settle genuine disputes arising from the process, not become the final destination where electoral victories are manufactured, overturned or reassigned.Jonathan was particularly forthright in condemning Nigeria’s dubious culture of post-election litigation and the judiciary’s growing role in determining political outcomes.“The Nigerian situation is extremely different from most other African countries. The kind of election litigation we experience here is uncommon. I can describe the Nigerian situation as a very anomalous one,” he said.He was right. Where an election is fundamentally compromised, the democratic remedy should ordinarily be a fresh poll, not a judicial declaration that substitutes the judgement of a handful of judges for the votes of millions of citizens.Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. This unsettling anomaly came into sharp focus at the 2026 Goodluck Jonathan Foundation Democracy Dialogue in Bauchi, where former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan sounded the alarm over the state of Nigeria’s democracy and the urgent need for reform.Their concerns are timely, with the 2027 general elections scheduled for January and February.Ideally, elections should be won and lost at the ballot box. Courts should settle genuine disputes arising from the process, not become the final destination where electoral victories are manufactured, overturned or reassigned.Jonathan was particularly forthright in condemning Nigeria’s dubious culture of post-election litigation and the judiciary’s growing role in determining political outcomes.“The Nigerian situation is extremely different from most other African countries. The kind of election litigation we experience here is uncommon. I can describe the Nigerian situation as a very anomalous one,” he said.He was right. Where an election is fundamentally compromised, the democratic remedy should ordinarily be a fresh poll, not a judicial declaration that substitutes the judgement of a handful of judges for the votes of millions of citizens.Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Their concerns are timely, with the 2027 general elections scheduled for January and February.Ideally, elections should be won and lost at the ballot box. Courts should settle genuine disputes arising from the process, not become the final destination where electoral victories are manufactured, overturned or reassigned.Jonathan was particularly forthright in condemning Nigeria’s dubious culture of post-election litigation and the judiciary’s growing role in determining political outcomes.“The Nigerian situation is extremely different from most other African countries. The kind of election litigation we experience here is uncommon. I can describe the Nigerian situation as a very anomalous one,” he said.He was right. Where an election is fundamentally compromised, the democratic remedy should ordinarily be a fresh poll, not a judicial declaration that substitutes the judgement of a handful of judges for the votes of millions of citizens.Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Ideally, elections should be won and lost at the ballot box. Courts should settle genuine disputes arising from the process, not become the final destination where electoral victories are manufactured, overturned or reassigned.Jonathan was particularly forthright in condemning Nigeria’s dubious culture of post-election litigation and the judiciary’s growing role in determining political outcomes.“The Nigerian situation is extremely different from most other African countries. The kind of election litigation we experience here is uncommon. I can describe the Nigerian situation as a very anomalous one,” he said.He was right. Where an election is fundamentally compromised, the democratic remedy should ordinarily be a fresh poll, not a judicial declaration that substitutes the judgement of a handful of judges for the votes of millions of citizens.Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Jonathan was particularly forthright in condemning Nigeria’s dubious culture of post-election litigation and the judiciary’s growing role in determining political outcomes.“The Nigerian situation is extremely different from most other African countries. The kind of election litigation we experience here is uncommon. I can describe the Nigerian situation as a very anomalous one,” he said.He was right. Where an election is fundamentally compromised, the democratic remedy should ordinarily be a fresh poll, not a judicial declaration that substitutes the judgement of a handful of judges for the votes of millions of citizens.Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. “The Nigerian situation is extremely different from most other African countries. The kind of election litigation we experience here is uncommon. I can describe the Nigerian situation as a very anomalous one,” he said.He was right. Where an election is fundamentally compromised, the democratic remedy should ordinarily be a fresh poll, not a judicial declaration that substitutes the judgement of a handful of judges for the votes of millions of citizens.Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. He was right. Where an election is fundamentally compromised, the democratic remedy should ordinarily be a fresh poll, not a judicial declaration that substitutes the judgement of a handful of judges for the votes of millions of citizens.Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Jonathan also lamented the extent to which the courts have intruded into the affairs of political parties.“Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. “Courts now determine who becomes a party’s candidate and, in some cases, which political party should be recognised,” he said.Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Political parties must retain primary responsibility for choosing their candidates. The judiciary should intervene where there is a clear breach of the law, but it should not become an alternative political institution.Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Obasanjo made an equally powerful point. He questioned the logic of millions of Nigerians voting in an election only for a five-member judicial panel to determine the eventual winner.In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. In governorship disputes, the absurdity becomes even more glaring when none of the judges may even come from the state whose political future they are deciding.Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Obasanjo also highlighted Nigeria’s defective winner-takes-all political culture. Once a candidate wins, even by a razor-thin margin, the victor assumes virtually total control, while the losers are often treated as enemies rather than legitimate participants in democratic governance.“When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. “When you talk about loyal opposition in an African setting, opposition means enemy. Then do you have a loyal enemy? So, what do you do with your enemy? You crush him and destroy him, and that is what we have,” he observed.His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. His criticism of the first-past-the-post system is equally compelling. As he put it, “If you beat me by one vote, then you take it all and whatever I have does not matter.”That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. That culture is poisonous to democracy. Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation. But in Nigeria, the ballot increasingly appears to be only the first stage of a political contest whose outcome may be decided elsewhere.The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The courts have consequently acquired enormous influence over electoral outcomes.The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The Supreme Court’s declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State in 2020 remains one of the most controversial examples of judicial intervention in an election.Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Likewise, the judicial pronouncements surrounding the eligibility of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his predecessor, Ahmed Lawan, in the 2023 elections generated considerable controversy over the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act.Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Indeed, presidential elections have repeatedly ended up before the Supreme Court. The 2015 election remains the notable exception, because Jonathan conceded victory to Muhammadu Buhari rather than pursue a prolonged legal battle.Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Governorship elections have hardly fared better. From Lagos to Oyo, Akwa Ibom to Benue, Cross River to Osun, Ondo to Ekiti, and Bayelsa to Enugu, electoral contests have repeatedly migrated from polling stations to courtrooms.This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. This is not healthy for democracy. It undermines the credibility of elections, erodes public confidence and undermines the judiciary itself.The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso’s lament about “billionaire judges” following the disputed 2007 elections remains a disturbing reminder of what happens when enormous political and financial interests converge around electoral litigation.INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. INEC must also accept its share of the blame. Beyond the familiar problems of rigging, vote-buying, intimidation and ballot-box snatching, the commission has historically struggled with the integrity of collation and transmission of results.Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Technology was introduced to address some of these weaknesses, from the permanent voter card to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic transmission of results.Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Yet the 2023 presidential election exposed serious shortcomings. Although INEC was expected to transmit polling-unit results through its iREV portal, the failure to upload presidential results as expected contributed significantly to suspicions surrounding the process.The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The commission has continued to deploy technology, including in subsequent off-cycle governorship elections. Still, technology alone cannot cure a political system whose principal actors remain determined to manipulate it.Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Ultimately, the greater responsibility lies with desperate politicians who deploy money, violence, intimidation and influence to corrupt the electoral process.Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Millions of Nigerians troop to thousands of polling units believing that their votes will determine who governs them. Yet, after the votes are counted and results announced, they are often left waiting for months or even years to discover whether the winner is actually the winner.That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. That is the cruel joke at the heart of Nigeria’s electoral democracy.The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The growing tendency to overturn election outcomes through litigation has also contributed to the emergence of off-cycle governorship elections in several states. More importantly, it has weakened the fundamental democratic relationship between the voter and the elected government.Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Jonathan was therefore right to call for a rethink of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, including party primaries.While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. While judicial oversight remains indispensable, indiscriminate judicial intervention can become counterproductive and create the impression that political outcomes can be obtained through litigation rather than persuasion at the ballot box.There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. There is also a disturbing perception that some judges are willing to serve the interests of powerful politicians in frivolous or politically motivated cases.Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Where judges deliberately subvert the Constitution, electoral laws or established judicial principles, there must be consequences. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. Judges who abuse their office should face disciplinary action, including suspension or removal where warranted.The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The broader question raised by Jonathan about democracy in Africa is equally important. Across the continent, elections have too often become rituals through which political elites legitimise themselves while manipulating constitutions, electoral laws and state institutions to retain power.His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. His argument that Africans should develop political models suited to their own realities rather than blindly reproduce imported systems may remain debatable. But there can be little dispute that the version of democracy practised in much of Africa requires serious structural reform.For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. For Nigeria, one reform must be to restore the supremacy of the ballot box.The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The judiciary must remain independent, fearless and capable of nullifying elections where the law has been flagrantly violated. But its role should be to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to routinely substitute its own judgement for that of the electorate.Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Where an election is irredeemably compromised, the proper democratic response should be another election, not a judicial coronation.Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. Nigeria cannot build a credible democracy when voters risk their lives to vote, only for the final political verdict to emerge years later from a courtroom.The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs. The ballot box must regain its authority. Otherwise, democracy becomes little more than an expensive ritual in which Nigerians vote, politicians litigate, and judges decide who governs.