IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections general elections, most related to party primary elections. 173 The courts often resolved these late, due to overly long legal deadlines and the volume of cases. The same issues occurred in previous elections; in 2011, the EU EOM recommended the use of ADR to reduce the volume of protracted litigation, suggesting that ADR mechanisms should be referenced political party constitutions. 174 But despite these calls, no ADR mechanisms for election disputes have been set up or piloted within the judiciary. Judges are generally proponents of ADR, given that it would reduce the burden on the courts, and most jurisdictions of the civil courts have incorporated ADR into their rules of court. At that level, ADR is carried out in court-annexed mediation centers. Under the current rules, a court can mandate mediation, or one or both of the parties can apply for it, although the courts recognize that the willing participation of the parties is key to making ADR work. In 2021, the Court of Appeal established a mediation center for appellate-level cases, the first in sub-Saharan Africa. 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 mediation’s success in other fields of the law, judges and other stakeholders could consider its introduction in courts for pre-election disputes. He considers that a significant challenge for ADR in elections is outreach, and he believes that the push for ADR in election disputes cannot come from INEC, as it is a potential party to the disputes. 175 It is also possible that lawyers may oppose ADR, believing that it would decrease their income. 176 A pilot project would need to include outreach to parties and party lawyers as well as training of judges and lawyers in mediation. Nepal This case study shows the importance of institutionalizing an existing decentralized practice of mediation or conciliation into its rules, rather than relying solely on a heavily centralized formal complaints mechanisms, which is seldom used. The Nepal example also features the challenge of poorly defined mandates of multiple EDR actors, which created confusion in the mandate and limited the efficiency of adjudication processes. In Nepal, in fields other than elections, there is a strong practice of mediation at the community level and a growing practice in judicial proceedings. The Constitution provides that ADR should be encouraged, and the government is making ongoing efforts to establish mediation as an essential component of justice-seeking at the local level. Nepal enacted the Mediation Act and established a Mediation Council that is responsible for issuing certification of mediators. 177 The Asia Foundation has led successful mediation programs and trained mediators in several provinces, leading to the resolution of thousands of land or family disputes by local community mediators. Building upon this successful experience, the Election Commission (ECN) could consider introducing mediation or other ADR mechanisms for election disputes. European Union election observation mission final report: Nigeria 2019 – General Elections. (2019). https://www.eods.eu/library/nigeria_2019_eu_eom_final_report-web.pdf 174 Ibid. 175 Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeals of Nigeria, personal communication, September 1, 2021. 176 Ibid. 177 Mediation Council. https://mediationcouncil.gov.np/ 173 66