As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, it is increasingly clear that electoral reform alone will not guarantee a transparent, accountable, and stable democratic process. For electoral reforms to have meaningful impact, they must be accompanied by far-reaching judicial reform. Without a trustworthy and independent judiciary, even the most robust electoral reforms risk being undermined by bias, inefficiency, or political manipulation.
A critical starting point in reforming Nigeria’s judiciary is overhauling the process through which judges are appointed. Currently, judges are appointed by the president based on recommendations from the National Judicial Council (NJC), subject to confirmation by the Senate. This process is opaque and vulnerable to political influence, eroding public confidence in the judiciary. Nigeria should consider transitioning to a system where judges, across magistrate, high, appellate, and even supreme courts, are elected by the people. Elected judges would be more accountable to the public and less susceptible to political pressure.
Training is also essential. As electoral disputes continue to shape Nigeria’s political landscape, judges must be adequately trained to handle these cases with expertise and impartiality. Too often, judgements on elections are delivered based on technicalities or questionable interpretations of the law, rather than on the substantive merit of the cases. A prominent example was the controversial judicial decision in the Edo 2024 governorship election, which raised concerns about the reliance on procedural loopholes rather than justice.
To uphold democracy, the judiciary must be insulated from political interference. Nigerians are increasingly demanding reforms that ensure judges interpret and apply the law impartially and without influence from political actors. Strengthening the independence of the judiciary is not just a legal requirement; it is a democratic imperative.
Judicial reform must also serve as a deterrent to electoral malpractice. Electoral reform should involve stronger legal provisions and clearer sanctions for offences such as vote rigging, voter intimidation, and bribery. Only with strict enforcement and swift adjudication of electoral offences can Nigeria hope to deter repeat offenders and promote a culture of accountability in its electoral processes.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), in its final report on the 2023 general elections, emphasised the importance of having a compendium of legal offences and penalties accessible to judicial and party officials. However, laws alone are insufficient if the judicial system lacks the integrity or efficiency to apply them.
The judiciary, often described as the last hope of the common man, occupies a critical place in Nigeria’s democratic architecture. It is expected to check the excesses of the executive and legislature, uphold the rule of law, and safeguard democratic governance. Yet, in recent years, the Nigerian judiciary has struggled with issues of delayed justice, conflicting rulings, widespread corruption, and perceived political interference. These systemic problems have eroded public confidence and highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive judicial reform.
Nigeria’s history of judicial reform is marked by high expectations and limited results. Despite numerous reform initiatives, the average Nigerian remains sceptical about whether the judiciary truly serves the public interest. Complaints about judicial corruption, incompetence, and inefficiency abound. These failures continue to undermine constitutional democracy and foster a growing sense of disenchantment with the justice system.
In considering reform, Nigeria would do well to learn from international examples—most notably Mexico’s bold experiment in judicial restructuring. In September 2024, the Mexican Congress passed constitutional reforms mandating the election of judges, including Supreme Court justices, by popular vote. These reforms, which will take effect from August 2025, represent a radical attempt to democratise the judiciary and bring it closer to the people it serves. Candidates must hold a law degree and meet strict professional qualifications, yet they will now be accountable to the electorate, not political elites.
While Mexico’s reforms are still unfolding, they offer valuable lessons for Nigeria. They emphasise the importance of empowering the judiciary while also making it more responsive to the public. Importantly, the reforms also extend to local judges—those who handle everyday civil, criminal, and family disputes. This focus on everyday justice ensures that judicial reform is not just an elite conversation but a grassroots transformation.
Conclusion
Nigeria must seize this moment to embark on its own historic judicial transformation. The country needs a bold, constitutionally grounded reform agenda that repositions the judiciary as an independent, transparent, and accountable institution. A reformed judiciary, coupled with credible electoral processes, will not only restore public trust but also strengthen Nigeria’s democratic foundations. The time to act is now. Judicial and electoral reforms are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually reinforcing pillars of a functional democracy.
