THE RULE OF LAW HAS LOST ITS RULE!
When a Courtroom Becomes a Theatre of Legal Ironies: The Curious Case of Karimi, Aro and the Disappearing Rules of Justice
By Pastor Stanley Ajileye
There are moments in the life of a nation when one is compelled to ask whether the law is still governed by rules or whether the rules have become subjects of the law’s convenience. The judgment delivered today, November 4, 2026, by the Federal High Court in Abuja in the case between Senator Sunday Steve Karimi and Hon. Samuel Bamidele Aro presents one of such bewildering moments.
- Advertisement -
One is tempted to announce, with considerable sadness and a generous dose of irony, that the Rule of Law has lost its rule!
Perhaps we have entered a new era of jurisprudence in which the rules are no longer rules, deadlines are merely suggestions, participation is optional, and victory can be awarded in an election whose very circumstances remain fiercely contested.
Welcome to the curious world of Nigerian electoral jurisprudence!
Consider the central controversy.
A pre-election suit was instituted to challenge the emergence of Senator Karimi as the APC candidate for Kogi West Senatorial District. The defence, represented by eminent Senior Advocates of Nigeria, raised a fundamental constitutional objection: that the action was statute-barred, having allegedly been instituted outside the 14 days prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
This was not a frivolous objection about punctuation, spelling or the colour of an election result sheet. It was an objection touching on the very jurisdiction of the court.
After all, jurisdiction is not a decorative provision in our Constitution. It is the foundation upon which judicial authority rests. Without jurisdiction, even the most eloquently written judgment cannot acquire legal legitimacy.
Yet, the court proceeded to grant the plaintiff’s reliefs.
One would naturally expect that such a fundamental constitutional objection would receive an unmistakable and convincing determination before the court proceeded to the substantive claims. The legal community and the public deserve to understand precisely how the court resolved the limitation question.
But perhaps the more intriguing aspect of this judicial drama lies elsewhere.
According to Senator Karimi’s position, which has also been reported in the media, which is of course, a public knowledge, Hon. Aro did not participate in the primary election that produced Karimi. The senator maintains that the documents presented to establish Aro’s participation and victory were questionable.
The court, however, accepted Aro’s case and declared him the winner of the primary it considered valid.
Here lies the million-naira question:
Can a person who allegedly did not participate in an election be declared its winner?
Let us be clear. If Aro participated in a valid primary and won, he is entitled to whatever legal protection the law provides. Nobody should deny an aspirant his legitimate victory.
But if the evidence establishes that he did not participate, where does the law derive the authority to transform a non-participant into an election winner?
Has Nigerian electoral jurisprudence discovered a new category of political participation called participation by judicial recognition?
Perhaps the next edition of party primary guidelines should provide that aspirants who are unable to attend elections may simply submit their political aspirations to a competent court for consideration.
After all, why queue at a polling venue when a courtroom might provide a more convenient alternative?
There is also the INEC monitoring controversy.
The court reportedly held that the primary election which produced Karimi was not monitored by INEC and was consequently invalid. It relied on the absence of INEC’s official records of the election claimed by Karimi.
This raises important questions about the evidence before the court, the distinction between INEC’s monitoring responsibilities and the party’s responsibility for conducting its primaries, and the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
If one primary was monitored and another was not, the documentary evidence should establish that fact beyond reasonable legal dispute.
But was the court presented with the complete picture? Were all relevant INEC records properly evaluated? What weight was given to the party’s own records and the evidence of the various parties?
These are not questions that can be dismissed with a wave of judicial authority. They are questions that go to the credibility of the entire electoral process.
And then comes the most interesting irony.
Senator Karimi’s counsel reportedly argued that the plaintiff’s action was statute-barred. The court rejected the defendants’ position and proceeded to determine the substantive claims.
Yet, in our constitutional democracy, limitation periods are not ornaments placed in the Constitution to beautify its pages. They are binding legal requirements.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the importance of compliance with statutory and constitutional limitation periods.
If the 14-day constitutional period applies to the cause of action in this matter, no amount of sympathy for a litigant can extend it.
If, on the other hand, the court found that the cause of action arose on a different date, Nigerians deserve to know the precise legal reasoning behind that conclusion.
That is the essence of judicial accountability.
The irony is that we have a legal system in which lawyers can spend years studying the intricacies of jurisdiction, limitation, locus standi and electoral procedure, only for ordinary citizens to be left wondering whether these principles still carry their accustomed meaning when politically sensitive disputes arise.
Is the law a predictable body of rules or an elastic instrument whose interpretation depends on the destination one wishes to reach?
Is justice about establishing who actually participated and won, or about discovering who can successfully establish a claim in court, irrespective of the underlying electoral controversy?
And if the court’s decision is eventually overturned on appeal, what happens to the confidence of party members who watched their primary election become the subject of such an extraordinary legal contest?
These are questions that deserve answers.
Let nobody misunderstand this intervention. Senator Karimi is not above the law. No senator, governor, president or political heavyweight should be above the law. If he violated the Electoral Act or his party’s guidelines, the law should take its course.
Equally, Hon. Aro is entitled to his day in court and to every legitimate remedy available to him.
But the law must be the same for both men.
Justice cannot be selective. Constitutional provisions cannot be applied enthusiastically to one litigant and conveniently diluted for another.
A court must not only dispense justice; it must demonstrate, through its reasoning, that justice has been dispensed.
The appellate court now has an important responsibility. It must examine the jurisdictional objection, the evidence relating to participation in the primary, the competing election records, the question of INEC monitoring and the legal foundation for declaring Aro the winner.
It must establish whether the trial court’s conclusions are supported by the law and the evidence.
The ultimate test is not whether the judgment favours Karimi or Aro. It is whether it withstands the scrutiny of the law.
For now, the Nigerian public is entitled to ask an uncomfortable question:
If the Rule of Law can be made to bend beyond recognition, who will enforce the rules when those entrusted with interpreting them appear to have lost sight of their purpose?
Perhaps the greatest casualty of today’s judgment is not Senator Karimi’s political ambition or Hon. Aro’s quest for a senatorial ticket. It is public confidence in the predictability, consistency and impartiality of our judicial process.
And that is a much bigger tragedy.
When the law becomes difficult to recognise in the courtroom, the ordinary citizen begins to wonder whether justice is still blind or has simply changed the direction in which it looks.
The Rule of Law must not become the rule of whoever can secure a favourable interpretation.
A court may declare a winner, but only the law can establish the legitimacy of that victory.
Until the appellate court has its say, one is left with a bitter but unavoidable conclusion:
THE RULE OF LAW HAS LOST ITS RULE!
And Nigeria must find it before the people lose faith in the institution entrusted with its protection.
Pastor Stanley Ajileye an advocate of equity, writes from Lokoja
DemocracyNewslineNewspaper November 5th, 2026
