JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, CONFLICTING RULINGS, AND THE INTEGRITY OF PRE-ELECTION DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN NIGERIA

Abstract

The Nigerian judiciary plays a pivotal role in resolving pre-election disputes, ensuring that conflicts between individuals, especially those related to political conflicts, are resolved amicably. However, inconsistent rulings, overreliance on technicalities, and political manipulation have eroded public confidence in the electoral process. Against this background, this article critically examines the role of the judiciary in the democratic process, particularly in relation to inter-party conflicts. This work considered the extant legislations on the subject to identify the prospects of the existing legal structure, the challenges inherent in the legal structure, and also infused a comparative analysis of the interpretative role of the judiciary in Nigeria with that of other countries. In carrying out this research, the doctrinal method of data collection was adopted. This method placed reliance on primary and secondary sources of law. The researcher found that the extant legal structure in Nigeria presented significant tensions between substantive justice and procedural justice, including insufficient regulatory frameworks and the various claw-backs in the law. It was recommended that there should be a rethink of judicial interpretation to enhance coherence, predictability, and the integrity of pre-election dispute resolution. Implementing the recommendations in this work would significantly boost the standing of the Nigerian judiciary and solidify its role as a just arbiter of conflicts.