During elections in Nigeria, the court system is mostly concerned with political parties, their candidates, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). One important aspect of any election is the votes cast by the people. Unfortunately, Nigerian courts often overlook voters to voice their concerns, even though they are supposed to safeguard the election outcomes. This conduct lacks a solid legal foundation.

The Nigerian Constitution clearly states that citizens have the right to challenge or be involved in legal matters related to elections. While elections often highlight the actions of political parties and candidates, the real issues should center on the will of the people who vote.

According to Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, the courts have the power to deal with issues related to the civil rights and responsibilities of individuals. Voting is the civil right of citizens who are at least 18 years of age and plays a key role in good governance. This right is protected by several laws and documents, such as the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These documents highlight that voting is a fundamental part of our constitution and should be respected.

Another way to look at it is to recognize that citizens or civic groups have the right to take part in election petitions, either as representatives or as testers. In this sense, the voter roll can be seen as a group where everyone shares an interest in making sure that elections are fair and that the results express the will of the people.

The main worry for those who disagree with this idea doesn’t come from whether the argument is constitutional, but from the difficulties in making it work. They seem to be concerned about the chance of this system being used in presidential elections by millions of people. This concern isn’t a legal issue but more about how to design or manage it, which has been looked into before.

INEC needs to first make sure that there is a strong following of the laws before any constitutional or electoral court, in a way that lets citizens get involved and challenge its claims. For instance, in its 2008 report, the Electoral Reform Committee, led by former Chief Justice Mohammed Lawal specifically supported this idea, suggesting a “shift in the burden of proof from the petitioners to INEC, requiring it to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed elections were indeed free and fair, and that the candidates declared as winners were truly the choices of the voters.