IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections traditions and customs, and the IEEPCO-supported mediation, but at the same time ensuring that a gender perspective is incorporated into the process. The case demonstrates the importance in such contexts of training and sensitization on indigenous customs as well as gender issues for all involved in the mediation. Lesson 6: Court-ordered or judiciary-led ADR is an avenue worth exploring for pre-election disputes Up to now, EMBs and other state actors, rather than the judiciary, have introduced ADR mechanisms into the resolution of election disputes. Outside the electoral field, the use of ADR by courts is growing worldwide in diverse fields including family, employment, consumer, and administrative law—and even criminal law. Mediation is a prerequisite to court proceedings in some countries and fields, and in others it is a voluntary option. The European Law Institute and the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary released a report on the relationship between courts and ADR. They formulated a set of best practices to consider when encouraging the use of ADR, including: “[t]o the extent permissible under the law of the Member State, Courts and Judges should seek to integrate ADR processes into the justice system, treating them as complementary systems ... Courts and Judges should inform parties and legal professionals about the availability and potential merits of available ADR processes and give them the opportunity to consider using such process before and during litigation.” 87 Nonetheless, judiciary-led ADR remains rare in the election field. During consultations on ADR led by IFES on the occasion of the Africa Electoral Justice Network meeting in July 2022, judges reached consensus that, while ADR use by the judiciary should be encouraged, it should be limited to pre-election disputes and also consider clear rules to define the scope of disputes and avoid issues related to bias or impartiality if judges are involved in the mediation and also at a later stage in the adjudication of the same dispute. However, judicial views on the use of ADR in election disputes are changing, as stakeholders see its potential to address disputes quickly and thereby ease pressure on the courts. Experts and election practitioners in Nigeria have called for increasing use of ADR by the judiciary to resolve the delays and backlogs of the electoral courts. There were reportedly at least 644 pre-election challenges in the 2019 Nigerian general elections, mostly related to party primary elections. The courts often resolved these late due to overly long legal deadlines and the volume of cases. In many other fields of civil law, the Nigerian courts have incorporated ADR into their Rules of Court, which is carried out at court-annexed Mediation Centers. The chief registrar of the Court of Appeal highlighted the advantages of mediation: “that it saves time, cost and matters are resolved in a more friendly way.” He said that building on its success in other fields of the law, judges and other stakeholders could consider the introduction of mediation for preelection disputes. A significant challenge for ADR in elections, however, is outreach to political parties and party lawyers, and he believes that the push for ADR in election disputes cannot come from the election commission, as they are a potential party to the disputes. 88 The relationship between formal and informal justice: the courts and informal dispute resolution: Report of the European Law Institute and of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. (2018). European Law Institute. https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ADR_Statement.pdf 88 H. Isah, personal communication, September 1, 2021. 87 39