Introduction
Disenfranchisement — the denial of a registered voter’s right to vote — is one of the key allegations often raised in Nigerian election petitions.
However, the courts have consistently held that proving disenfranchisement requires meeting strict evidentiary standards. Below are key principles distilled from recent appellate and Supreme Court decisions.
What Disenfranchisement Means
In Odeh & Anor v. Ahubi & Ors (2015) LPELR-41783(CA), the Court of Appeal defined disenfranchisement as when a voter claims to be duly registered but was not allowed to vote. Similarly, in Waya v. Akaa & Ors (2023) LPELR-60096(SC), the Supreme Court stated that a voter is disenfranchised when his right to vote is denied despite being duly registered.
Thus, disenfranchisement connotes the denial of an electorate’s right to exercise their franchise in an election or primary.
Evidence Required to Prove Disenfranchisement
Proving disenfranchisement is more than alleging that voters or delegates were denied the opportunity to vote. The courts have outlined what a petitioner must show:
The disenfranchised voters must give clear evidence that they were duly registered (or accredited, in the case of delegates) and presented themselves to vote but were denied the opportunity.
In Waya v. Akaa & Ors (2023) LPELR-60096(SC), the Supreme Court emphasized that it is essential to tender voter cards and voters’ registers (or delegate accreditation documents) from the affected polling units or venue to corroborate the claim.
Most importantly, the disenfranchised voters themselves should testify and demonstrate that had they been allowed to vote, the outcome of the election would have been different in favor of their preferred candidate. (Waya v. Akaa & Ors, Ucha v. Elechi (2012), Oke v. Mimiko (No.2) (2014), Omajadi v. David (2019), Ngige v. INEC (2015))
Common Pitfalls in Proving Disenfranchisement
Many petitions fail because the petitioner only makes general allegations without providing the names, particulars, or testimony of specific disenfranchised voters or delegates. For instance:
In Shaibu v. INEC & Ors (2024) LPELR-62954(CA), the appellant claimed 393 delegates were disenfranchised but failed to name even one of them or provide proof that they attempted to vote and were denied.
In Olatunde & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2023) LPELR-61409(CA), field witnesses actually testified that they voted, contradicting the claim of disenfranchisement.
Without direct testimony from the disenfranchised voters and supporting documentary evidence, courts are reluctant to find in favor of the petitioner.
Conclusion
Alleging disenfranchisement in an election petition is serious but must be supported by credible and concrete evidence. Petitioners should ensure that affected voters or delegates testify, and that their registration/accreditation documents and the voters’ registers are tendered to support the claim. The Nigerian courts demand nothing less because of the weighty implication of invalidating an election result.
Disclaimer:
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific electoral matters or litigation, please consult a qualified legal practitioner.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.