Dispute Resolution and Electoral Justice in Africa: The Way Forward

Abstract

This paper examines electoral adjudication in Africa's democratisation process. The idea of aggrieved persons instituting election petition in court as opposed to resorting to mayhem is a positive sign in Africa's democratisation process. The aggrieved choose the law as their arbiter and put their hope in the law. This practice will facilitate the institutionalisation of succession and entrench the rule of law and constitutionalism. However, there have been misgivings about the outcome of judicial adjudication of these electoral disputes. Electoral disputes are not resolved expeditiously and courts decisions on such matters are sometimes overtaken by events. There is also the perception of judicial bias, corruption, and overwhelming political influence of the judiciary leading to lack of confidence in the process. In the same way the large numbers of election petitions put a lot of strain on the judiciary, clogging the courts. Alternate Electoral Dispute Resolution (AEDR), both formal and informal, offers avenues to resolving election dispute but this mainly pertains to pre-election disputes with post-election disputes being dealt with by the courts. In view of the proliferation of election petitions it is imperative that AEDR should be considered as a viable complement to adjudication. Also, voter education should be intensified on realistic expectations of elections by citizens so that election ends with the ballot and only genuine cases go through adjudication.