By Paul Okojie

Nigeria’s democracy is designed to be anchored on the supremacy of the ballot. The credibility of the election is sacrosanct and a very intrigal to our nation since 1999. Yet, since the 2023 general elections, there is a growing and troubling perception that political contests are increasingly being settled not at polling units, but in courtrooms. This shift started as subtle at first, but now unmistakable and raises serious fundamental questions about the health of the nation’s democratic architecture under the present administration.

No serious democracy can function without a strong and independent judiciary. Courts are essential arbiters in electoral disputes, and Nigeria’s post-election litigation process is both constitutional and necessary. However, what has emerged in recent years is not merely judicial oversight, but an expanding judicial footprint in the day-to-day operations of political parties and their ability to function freely.

Opposition parties like the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), African Democratic Congress (ADC), and Social Democratic Party (SDP) have repeatedly alleged that the legal environment has become a constraining tool rather than a neutral mechanism. From prolonged leadership disputes driven by conflicting court orders to injunctions affecting primaries, conventions, and internal party processes, the opposition space has become heavily litigated and, in many cases, destabilized.

What is most striking and particularly concerning are instances where state-backed actors have sought judicial orders to restrict political activities altogether. The attempted ban on rallies and political gatherings in Kaduna State which was later struck down by the court as unconstitutional, illustrates how legal instruments can be deployed in ways that test the boundaries of democratic freedoms. Even when such attempts fail, the signal they send is unmistakable: political participation can be subjected to administrative and judicial bottlenecks.

This pattern has led to what analysts now describe as the “judicialization of politics.” In practical terms, it means party structures, candidate selections, and even routine political engagements are increasingly mediated by the courts. The unintended consequence is a weakening of internal party democracy and a growing reliance on litigation as a political strategy. Parties spend more time in legal battles than in policy articulation or grassroots mobilization.

To be clear, the judiciary is not the enemy of democracy. In several instances, courts have acted as a bulwark against executive overreach, reaffirming constitutional rights to assembly and political participation. But when the legal system becomes the primary arena for political competition, it distorts the democratic process. Elections risk becoming preliminary exercises, with final outcomes effectively determined through litigation.

The responsibility for this trend does not lie with one institution alone. Political actors themselves have contributed by weaponizing the courts to settle internal disputes and gain strategic advantage. Yet, the broader environment is where security agencies, administrative decisions, and legal processes intersect has created conditions that disproportionately burden opposition parties.

Democracy thrives on competition, dissent, and the free exchange of ideas. When opposition parties are entangled in endless court cases or face attempts of direct or indirect—to limit their activities, the entire system suffers. A weakened opposition does not strengthen governance; it erodes accountability. 

Nigeria must guard against a gradual drift from ballot supremacy to judicial supremacy. The courts must remain arbiters, not arenas for political engineering. Political parties, for their part, must strengthen internal mechanisms to reduce litigation. And the state must ensure that security and legal frameworks are applied impartially, without the appearance of targeting dissent.

The credibility of Nigeria’s democracy depends not only on who wins elections, but on how freely political actors can compete. If the playing field is perceived as uneven, whether through legal constraints or institutional bias the public trust in the system will continue to erode. 

At this critical juncture, the country must reaffirm a simple but vital principle: democracy belongs first to the people, not the courts. The ruling party must understand democracy should not be truncated in their time, opposition is also part of the process of the election.

Paul Okojie is a Media Consultant/Journalist.