by Olaitan Babatunde
An election result is announced, a winner is declared and political celebrations begin. But what happens when another candidate believes the result does not reflect what happened at the polling units? Perhaps there are allegations of over-voting, excluded votes, irregularities in collation or non-compliance with electoral laws. Does the announcement by INEC mean the matter is settled? Not necessarily. Nigeria’s electoral system provides a judicial process through which eligible candidates and political parties can challenge an election. This process is known as an election petition.
An election petition is a formal legal challenge to the conduct or outcome of an election. It is not simply a complaint submitted to INEC, a press conference or a social media allegation. Under the Electoral Act 2026, an election can only be questioned through an election petition presented to the appropriate tribunal or court in accordance with the Constitution and the Act. The people entitled to present a petition are generally a candidate who participated in the election or a political party that participated in it. An ordinary voter who is unhappy with the result cannot independently file an election petition simply because they voted in that election. The person declared elected must also be joined as a party to the proceedings.
The next question is where the petition goes. Presidential election petitions are heard by the Court of Appeal in its original jurisdiction. Governorship and National and State Assembly election petitions are heard by the relevant election tribunals established under the Constitution. The applicable appeal routes differ according to the office involved. Appeals in presidential and governorship election matters go to the Supreme Court, while appeals in National and State Assembly election matters go to the Court of Appeal. These distinctions matter because not every election dispute follows the same judicial route.
Time is one of the strictest parts of the process. Section 285(5) of the Constitution requires an election petition to be filed within 21 days after the declaration of the election result. This is not 21 working days. It is a constitutional deadline, and missing it can prevent a petition from being entertained. The Constitution also requires an election tribunal to deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date the petition is filed. An appeal in an election matter must be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date the relevant judgment is delivered. These deadlines exist because election disputes cannot remain unresolved indefinitely while elected officials exercise public office.
But filing a petition is only the beginning. The petitioner must establish a legally recognised ground for challenging the election. Under the Electoral Act, grounds include that the person declared elected was not qualified to contest, that the election was invalid because of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the Constitution or Electoral Act, or that the respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast. The petitioner must clearly state the facts, the grounds of the complaint and the relief being requested. The petition must also be accompanied by the required list of witnesses, their written statements on oath and the documents to be relied upon. This is why evidence matters. A claim that an election was stolen must be supported by facts that can be examined in court.
Evidence can include polling-unit result sheets, accreditation records, collation documents, witness testimony, photographs, videos and other admissible materials relevant to the grounds of the petition. The weight of any evidence depends on its authenticity, relevance, admissibility and connection to the specific complaint. For example, alleging over-voting requires more than presenting a photograph of a crowded polling unit. The petitioner must establish the relevant voting figures and demonstrate how the alleged irregularity affected the result under the applicable legal test. Similarly, an allegation of non-compliance does not automatically nullify an election. The petitioner must establish the legal significance of the breach, including whether it substantially affected the result where that requirement applies. Courts do not decide election cases based on which candidate has the louder supporters or the more convincing press conference.
Can a declared winner actually be removed? Yes. If a tribunal or court finds that the election was invalid, it may nullify the election. Depending on the facts, the law and the relief sought, it may declare another candidate duly elected or order a fresh election. A declared winner can therefore lose the office through the election petition process. However, a petitioner does not automatically become the winner simply because the tribunal identifies irregularities. The court must determine whether the petitioner has established the legal grounds and whether the law permits the particular remedy being requested.
The process can take time because parties must exchange legal documents, present witnesses, tender evidence, challenge documents and respond to legal arguments. There may also be preliminary objections, disputes about jurisdiction and appeals. The constitutional deadlines are designed to limit delays, but the volume and complexity of evidence can make election litigation demanding. This is also why the quality of evidence collected during the election matters. Result sheets, polling-unit records and properly documented incidents can become important long after voting has ended.
For citizens, the election petition process is a reminder that announcing a result and legally determining a dispute are not always the same thing. INEC declares results, but the courts and tribunals determine petitions brought under the law. Voters can support transparency by keeping records, reporting irregularities through appropriate channels and understanding the difference between a genuine legal challenge and an unsupported allegation. An election petition is not a second opportunity to vote. It is a legal process for determining whether the election complied with the law and whether the declared winner was lawfully returned.
