THE BARABBAS PARADIGM IN ELECTORAL JURISPRUDENCE: BIBLICAL NARRATIVE AND THE CRISIS OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN NIGERIAN ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT 2026

Abstract

This study examined the jurisprudential architecture of electoral dispute resolution in Nigeria through integrative analysis of biblical narrative and constitutional legal doctrine. The research employed legal doctrinal methodology to analyse the constitutional framework governing electoral justice under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2026, whilst employing biblical exegesis of Matthew 27:15–26 (the Barabbas episode) as theological-juridical analogy for understanding institutional failures in Nigerian electoral adjudication. The study analysed seventeen major electoral petitions decided between 2011 and 2026, with particular emphasis on the doctrinal pattern of judicial abdication under institutional pressure, comparative with the biblical narrative of Pilate's surrender of judicial independence. The research examined the doctrine of fair hearing articulated in section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, and compared this doctrine with religious traditions emphasizing prophetic accountability and institutional integrity. The study analysed the phenomenon of religious leaders' political endorsement under financial inducement, interpreted through the biblical lens of Matthew 27:20 (chief priests persuading crowds), and examined the doctrinal implications for democratic legitimacy. The research employed comparative legal methodology to examine how courts in East Africa, southern Africa, and Europe have articulated judicial accountability standards that refused the temptation to employ procedural formalism as substitute for substantive justice. The study concluded that Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence had manifested the structural pattern described in the Barabbas narrative: formally valid legal procedures employed to produce substantively unjust outcomes. The study recommended adoption of jurisprudential guidelines requiring courts to engage substantively with evidence of electoral irregularities, and recommended religious institutions establish independent civic platforms for candidate interrogation insulated from political patronage. These findings contributed to the emerging field of law and religion scholarship examining the intersection of religious narrative and constitutional democracy.