Resolving Conflicting Judgments in Nigeria’s Election Petitions: Why We Need a Unified Review System

By Olu Ibekwe

In recent times, some panels of Nigeria’s Court of Appeal have given different rulings on the same election-related issues. This has led to confusion, created uncertainty in the law, and made people lose trust in how election disputes are handled. For example, in the 2023 election petitions in Plateau and Imo States, separate panels of the Court of Appeal reached opposite conclusions on the same legal points. Since the Court of Appeal is often the last step for these types of cases, there is no higher court to resolve these contradictions.

This problem can be solved if the National Assembly changes the Electoral Act to allow for what is known in the United States as en banc review. In the U.S., when different three-judge panels of the same appeals court disagree on a major legal issue, all or most of the judges of that court come together to resolve the conflict. By adopting a similar system in Nigeria, we can ensure that decisions on election petitions are consistent and fair.

The Problem of Conflicting Judgments in Election Petitions

1. Lack of a Unified Appeal Mechanism: Under Section 246(3) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, the Court of Appeal is the highest court for National Assembly and State House of Assembly election petitions. Its decisions in these cases cannot be taken to the Supreme Court. If two different panels of the Court of Appeal give contradictory judgments on the same point, there is no further appeal to settle the disagreement. This leaves the law unsettled and confuses candidates, political parties, and voters.
2. Examples from 2023
• Plateau State: One Court of Appeal panel ruled that certain PDP candidates were not properly nominated, but another panel upheld a similar nomination process.
• Imo State: Different panels also gave conflicting decisions about whether a candidate’s election was valid.

These types of clashes make it hard for everyone involved in elections to know which legal interpretation is correct, weakening public confidence in the outcome.

Understanding En Banc Review and Why It Matters

What Is En Banc Review? In the U.S., appeals courts usually have three judges hear a case. However, if different three-judge panels within the same court start to rule differently on the same legal issue, the entire court—or a large number of its judges—can rehear the case together (called en banc). This way, the court speaks with one voice and makes sure its rulings are consistent.

Why Nigeria Needs Something Similar: Because the Court of Appeal is the final stop for many election petitions, there is no chance for the Supreme Court to resolve any disagreements between panels. Allowing a larger group of Appeal Court judges to review and harmonize conflicting decisions would ensure that the law is applied the same way across different election cases.

Proposed Changes to the Electoral Act

To set up an en banc system in Nigeria, the Electoral Act should be updated to include clear rules on when and how en banc proceedings can happen. Here’s what those changes might look like:

1. Creation of an Election Appeals Coordination Committee (EACC)
• This committee would keep track of all judgments from different panels hearing election appeals.
• If they find rulings that disagree on important legal questions, they would recommend an en banc hearing to make sure a single, clear rule is established.

Sample Amendment:

“There shall be an Election Appeals Coordination Committee within the Court of Appeal responsible for reviewing all election petition judgments delivered by different appellate panels. Where conflicting judgments are identified on a substantially similar legal issue, the Committee shall recommend the convening of an en banc hearing to resolve the inconsistency.”

2. Criteria for En Banc Review
• An en banc review should only happen when there are real, significant conflicts in the law.
• It should also apply when a three-judge panel itself asks for further review or if the question is extremely important nationwide.

Sample Amendment:

“An en banc review shall be convened by the President of the Court of Appeal if:

(a) There are conflicting decisions from different appellate panels on the same legal issue in election petitions;

(b) The issue affects multiple election disputes and is likely to recur;

(c) A three-judge panel requests en banc review to resolve a significant legal question affecting electoral jurisprudence; or

(d) The Election Appeals Coordination Committee determines that the matter is of exceptional national importance.”

3. Size and Selection of the En Banc Panel
• The Court of Appeal has over 90 Justices, so it would be unworkable to have everyone hear every case.
• Instead, the President of the Court of Appeal, in consultation with the EACC, would choose at least nine Justices representing different regions to form the en banc panel.

Sample Amendment:

“An en banc hearing shall be conducted by not less than nine Justices of the Court of Appeal, selected by the President of the Court of Appeal in consultation with the Election Appeals Coordination Committee. The Justices shall be drawn from different divisions to ensure a broader and more authoritative ruling.”

4. Binding Power of En Banc Decisions
• Once the en banc panel decides a case, its ruling would override any previous conflicting decisions.
• All future election panels and tribunals would have to follow that ruling.

Sample Amendment:

“The decision of an en banc panel shall be binding on all panels of the Court of Appeal and all election tribunals for the current election cycle and shall serve as precedent in subsequent electoral disputes.”

5. Fast-Track Timeline
• Election cases need quick resolutions.
• The en banc panel should finish its review and give a ruling within a strict, short time frame.

Sample Amendment:

“An en banc hearing shall be concluded within 14 days of being convened, and the ruling shall be delivered no later than 7 days thereafter.”

Conclusion

Adopting an en banc or larger-review system within Nigeria’s Court of Appeal would resolve the problem of different panels issuing conflicting judgments in election cases. By updating the Electoral Act to include this mechanism, Nigeria can guarantee that its election laws are consistently applied, which in turn will strengthen public trust in election outcomes and uphold the rule of law.

An en banc review process will help Nigeria avoid future election cycles filled with contradictory appellate decisions. The National Assembly has the power to make these changes now, and doing so will provide fairness, predictability, and clarity for candidates, political parties, and the Nigerian people.