THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY: A CRITICAL EVALUATION

Abstract The judiciary has a unique position to interpret as well as protect constitutional norms without wielding the power of the sword or the purse. Alexander Hamilton once described the judiciary as “the least dangerous branch” of government. Similarly, Nwabueze argued that “constitutional democracy cannot thrive without a vibrant judiciary that remains independent and impartial.” This means that the judiciary has an indispensable function in ensuring that constitutional democracy is upheld. This is more evident in jurisdictions like Nigeria where democratic principles face constant challenges. The judiciary can either be a stabilizing or destabilizing force in the nation's democracy by ensuring that electoral processes adhere to the rule of law. The judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional democracy has come under scrutiny. It has been widely argued that the Judiciary has a duty to address human rights abuses by the Nigeria Police force. Ultimately this led to the EndSARS protests of 2020 which demanded accountability as well as justice for police brutality. Similarly, the recent controversies surrounding the interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 have tested the judiciary's resilience in navigating politically charged issues. Furthermore, the 2023 general elections exposed critical lapses within the judicial system. There were petitions arising from alleged irregularities during the presidential and gubernatorial elections. This brought to the fore the responsibility of the judiciary in maintaining public confidence in the electoral process. There was a huge controversy surrounding the 2023 presidential election petitions. The courts were tasked with adjudicating allegations of electoral fraud as well as procedural irregularities. The decisions of the judiciary were closely scrutinized throughout this period. This is because they bore significant implications for public confidence in democratic institutions. The role of the Judiciary has been brought into question in the light of increasing reports of judicial corruption. In Adeleke v INEC and others, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Court of Appeal. This nullified the election victory of Ademola Adeleke. The decision of the apex court on this matter sparked strong opinions. The public raised a huge outcry. Some individuals argued that the decision sacrificed justice for the sake of technicalities. Others suggested that the ruling aligned with the longstanding principles for a fair trial. The role of the Judiciary is under threat. The Court orders have been flaunted in numerous cases. The Governor of Edo state together with the Edo State House of Assembly openly defied a High Court ruling by maintaining the suspension of all 18 local government chairmen. An Edo State High Court had earlier issued an injunction declaring the suspension of the chairmen null and void. This bold stance has triggered widespread condemnation and heightened concerns over the state’s disregard for judicial authority. It has also reignited debates on judicial independence and its centrality to a functioning democracy. It is evident that the judiciary has impact on the democratic process in Nigeria. A report by the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) noted that the judiciary handled over 500 pre-election and post-election cases between 2019 and 2023. This indicates its critical role in electoral dispute resolution. Additionally, the judiciary has an obligation to combat corruption within democratic institutions. Transparency International’s 2024 report ranks Nigeria 145th out of 180 countries in corruption perception. The constitution provides the legal framework for the judiciary’s role in upholding democracy. Section 6 vests judicial powers in the courts. This enables them it to interpret laws as well as adjudicate disputes. Additionally, Section 285 establishes election tribunals. This indicates the judiciary’s specialized role in resolving electoral disputes. These sections form the bedrock of the judiciary’s authority in maintaining democratic order. The judiciary’s effectiveness in upholding constitutional democracy is not only a legal imperative but also a societal necessity. This would ensure the sustenance of Nigeria’s fragile democracy. 1.2 Statement of the Problem The judicial system holds a crucial position in ensuring the survival of constitutional democracy. However, the judiciary in Nigeria has faced recurring criticisms regarding its ability to uphold constitutional principles amidst growing political interference, allegations of corruption, and delays in the dispensation of justice. These challenges raise concerns about the judiciary's independence, credibility and capacity to act as the guardian of the constitution as well as protector of democratic governance. There are extensive literatures on the subject matter. However, significant gaps persist. Many studies focus on judicial activism or judicial restraint. They do not adequately address the various challenges faced by judiciary in Nigeria. There is limited empirical evidence on the effectiveness of judiciary in carrying out its role. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in judicial decisions in election matters. This highlights that there is need for critical evaluation. The problem exists within a broader context of the democratic evolution of Nigeria. This has been characterized by a history of military interventions and systemic corruption. The judiciary has been burdened with the task of rebuilding public trust since the restoration of civilian governance in 1999. However, the ability of the judiciary to effectively navigate this role has been hampered by lack of independence. For example, 1993 presidential election was annulled. That event remained a historical blemish. There shows that the judiciary is vulnerable to external influences. The judiciary has been perceived inefficient in handling corruption cases. Corruption cases involving politically exposed persons often linger for years without resolution. This fuelled the perception that the judiciary is complicit in perpetuating a culture of impunity. This viewpoint is intensified by inconsistent rulings from courts of coordinate jurisdiction. The problem is of critical importance. This is because it directly affects the electorate whose democratic rights are often compromised by judicial shortcomings. Furthermore, the conduct of the Judiciary has significant implications for the global image of Nigeria. There could be severe consequences if this problem is not addressed. The public confidence in democratic institutions would decline. In addition, Political instability would be heightened. The principles of separation of powers and checks and balances would be undermined when there is an ineffective judiciary. The democratic process would also be vulnerable to manipulation. Ultimately, this could spell doom for the hard earned democratic gains of Nigeria.