The Nigerian Supreme Court On Electoral Matters And The Dynamic Nature Of Law.

Abstract

In logic, there are four concepts of argument: first, the law of non-contradiction, second, the law of excluded middle, third, the law of identity, and fourth, De Morgan’s laws. However, for convenience’s sake, we shall limit ourselves to the first two of the four concepts of arguments.. The law of non-contradiction states that: if something is true, then the opposite of it is false. For example, suppose it is true that in genuine democracies, the majority must rule. In that case, the opposite of it is false to state that, in genuine democracies, the minority must rule. A statement must not offend the law of identity. For example, a minority rule over a majority is not dangerous, unlike setting a venomous snake on the loose. A person not scared by minority rule over the majority is irrational. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. Against these backgrounds, we will critically appraise some of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s decisions in electoral matters. This paper examines whether the Supreme Court’s decision on some disputes on electoral matters is premised on valid logic based on a wide range of acceptable political nuances. The objective of this paper are: to embark on the voyage of distilling the views of authors to study the trends of knowledge in review of literature, to engage in critical appraisal of some decisions of the Supreme Court on electoral matters, to distill reasons why some of the decisions of Courts are not in tandem with the basic rules that guides any political establishment, and to suggest solutions for future consideration by the Courts.