By Henry Ojelu, LAGOS

Former Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, has raised fresh concerns over public perception of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in electoral disputes, stressing that while its decisions are constitutionally final, they must also command public confidence to sustain democracy.

Osinbajo stated this on Wednesday during a fireside chat session titled “Guardians of the scale: Independent courts, trusted justice and a stronger nation,” at the 2026 Annual Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Legal Practice in Lagos.

The session was moderated by Prof Yinka Omoregbe, SAN.

Osinbajo acknowledged that under Nigeria’s constitutional framework, decisions of the Supreme Court in electoral matters are final and not subject to appeal, but warned that finality does not automatically translate to infallibility in the eyes of the public.

“The Supreme Court is final, not because it is always right, but because there must be an end to litigation,” he said.

Despite this, Osinbajo expressed concern that controversial judgments in election petitions have, at times, weakened public confidence in the judiciary, noting that when decisions appear inconsistent with fairness or the will of the electorate, they create a legitimacy gap.

Citing the 2019 Zamfara governorship dispute involving the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Senator Kabiru Marafa, he said the apex court’s decision to void the party’s votes on the basis of flawed primaries raised fundamental questions about electoral justice.

According to him, despite overwhelming votes cast for APC candidates across the state, from the governorship to the House of Assembly, the court ruled that the votes were wasted and awarded victory to candidates rejected at the polls.

“The fundamental question is: if the people have clearly expressed their will, should that not be upheld?” he queried, adding that, at worst, such circumstances should lead to the nullification of the election rather than the substitution of the electorate’s choice.

He argued that the judiciary must be careful not to appear as imposing outcomes on voters, insisting that the electoral process ultimately belongs to the people and must reflect democratic choice.

Osinbajo further decried what he described as inconsistencies and disregard for precedent in electoral adjudication, citing recent cases, including a 2024 Supreme Court decision in Manasseh v Ghosho, where a Justice of the apex court reportedly criticised lower courts for ignoring established legal principles.

He said the judgment contained unusually strong remarks against both the tribunal and the Court of Appeal, describing their conduct as “judicial misconduct of extreme proportions” and accusing them of abandoning settled precedent.

According to him, conflicting decisions by different panels—particularly in post-2023 election cases—suggest a troubling pattern where courts appear to reach conclusions without regard to binding authorities, especially on pre-election matters which have already been settled by higher courts.

He noted that such inconsistencies not only undermine legal certainty but also raise serious questions about integrity within the system.

“Even if it is not outright corruption, it is at least corruption-adjacent. It raises concerns that cannot be ignored,” he said.

Osinbajo questioned the absence of consequences in situations where higher courts identify serious judicial lapses, warning that failure to enforce accountability erodes discipline and public trust.

He reiterated that the credibility of the judiciary depends not only on legal correctness but also on transparency, consistency, and clarity in judicial reasoning, particularly in politically sensitive cases.

“If the ordinary citizen cannot understand or accept why a decision was reached, confidence in the system is eroded,” he said.

He stressed that justices handling electoral disputes carry an extraordinary burden, as their decisions often determine political leadership and shape governance outcomes.

He called for continuous improvement in judicial quality through better appointment processes, stronger adherence to precedent, and enhanced accountability mechanisms.

Osinbajo also pointed to the role of lawyers, noting that the conduct and quality of advocacy in election petitions significantly influence judicial outcomes, and urged stricter adherence to professional ethics.

He concluded that Nigeria’s democracy depends on a judiciary that is both authoritative and trusted, warning that public confidence remains the ultimate measure of legitimacy.

“Finality must go hand in hand with fairness,” he said.