Abstract
This paper examines the burden of proof in Nigerian election petitions through the lens of electoral integrity and democratic theory, with the aim of determining whether persistent public dissatisfaction with electoral adjudication stems from judicial failure or from structural deficiencies in the legal framework. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative research methodology, the study analyses constitutional provisions, the Evidence Act 2011, the Electoral Act 2022, and leading judicial decisions, complemented by comparative insights from Kenya, India, and the United States. The paper finds that Nigeria’s evidentiary regime imposes an onerous and often impracticable burden on petitioners, reinforced by presumptions of regularity in favour of electoral outcomes declared by INEC, strict timelines, and limited access to electoral materials. These constraints, rather than judicial unwillingness, largely account for the difficulty of overturning flawed elections. Comparative analysis reveals that jurisdictions permitting evidentiary burden-shifting upon the establishment of prima facie irregularities are better equipped to safeguard electoral integrity. The paper recommends targeted statutory reforms, including limited transparency obligations on INEC, recalibration of evidentiary presumptions, and greater recognition of technology-driven evidence. It concludes that strengthening electoral integrity in Nigeria requires reform of the evidentiary framework governing election petitions rather than continued attribution of blame to the judiciary.