INEC’s Power To Issue Election Guidelines - Monday Ubani

本站添加: 2026-05-31

[00:00:05]And 24 hours after the Independent National Electoral Commission appealed the judgment, nullifying part of its election guidelines issued to political parties, another court presided by over justice uh James Shaw has oeded the commission's power to issue a timetable for the 2027 elections. Now, Justice Omote Shaw of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in a judgment delivered on May 26th, 2026 dismissed the argument of the plaintiff that INC did not possess the power to fix or prescribe a timetable for the conduct of the party primaries. Now, the plaintiff in the suit is the Social Democratic Party, and they had dragged in before the court to challenge its power to issue an election timetable. While the party in a suit filed on the 9th of April of this year raised five questions for determination by the court. It also sought seven reliefs in its originating summons.

[00:01:05]Lawyer Dr. Monday Ubani s will be discussing the judicial crossroads occasioned by the judgments of justices Umar and Matasha on Inex electoral guidelines. It's good to have you in uh with us today. Uh Barca Desella, Dr. Ubani.

[00:01:28]>> Yeah, thank you. Thank you for having me. Good afternoon.

[00:01:30]>> Well, both Justice Umar and Omatasha ruled that inex uh timeline and guidelines were uh must align with the framework and the time frames of the electoral act. Historically speaking, um how much latitude has INC been given uh to set its own schedule uh over time and why are these specific judgments uh departure from that?

[00:01:59]>> Thank you. Uh once again I I I think it was justice um that first gave his own judgment for for youth party and uh he made very there was sweeping judgment nullifying uh several portions of the timetable the administrative guideline of neck towards 2027 uh general election and the argument which the court uh actually bought is that That particular guideline I breached the statutory framework that actually gave INC power to issue guidelines you know and then when there is any conflict uh between a guideline which is a subsidiary legislation and then the substantive law the position of the law is that uh the subsidiary law will be declared invalid uh null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.

[00:02:58]And so from the findings of the court that I neck asks uh uh the parties to deliver their uh membership register on or before 10th of May uh will actually affect the rights of uh political parties and their candidates who still have up to September within which to submit names of those who have uh gone through the primaries in those political parties. So what the court was trying to say that if an act an enabling act has given rights uh to somebody you cannot through any guideline administrative or otherwise reduce that particular power and so that's why this statement was made now nullifying the one the issue of the guideline completely uh including the issue of submission of uh uh I mean uh the party membership register on or before 10th of May giving deadline now to be sometime in in September.

[00:04:03]Well, in the case of justice of motorshaw, justice of motorshaw agreed uh substantially with the judgment of justice zoomer as to the issue of the fact that electoral guideline should not supersede the substantive law. That is there was no point of divergency. There was convergence there by both justices.

[00:04:24]But what uh honorable justice was saying in his own judgment that in the case of the parties register that was asked to be submitted on or before 10th of May that it does not lie in the mouth of any court to try now to you know make any finding that conflict with that in invalidate that particular guideline or the timetable because their powers are derived from the constitution in order to give a timeline or timetable and that timetable is towards the election itself proper and so if the law has given them timeline I mean powers in order to issue guidelines and timetable and the guideline and timetable does not conflict with the provisions of the enabling act then you cannot in any way you know invalidate that particular timeline with regards to the uh party register so that is where they disagree the issue of scope of the powers of with regards to power that has been given to it to monitor to organize uh to prepare for election. So what the later judge was trying to say that that administrative power that has been given to them as long as it does not offend any of the enabling law then you have no right to tamper uh with that timetable that has been fixed.

[00:05:42]>> Now but I'm wondering you know if this rulings expose ambiguities in the electoral act itself or is the problem more about interpretation by the courts cuz I'm wondering why we keep having you know these divergent points. Is that how it the judiciary is supposed to work?

[00:06:01]>> Well, the point is that uh judges see things differently. I mean they all human beings. They're not they're not angels. I mean they they're not spirits.

[00:06:10]Uh the way you look at issue uh in your own perspective may be different from the way your colleague there is also when he sees the same thing look at an issue. So uh what that is why we have the applet process. So when there is any conflicting judgment like this that will be harmoni harmonized at the appropriate appealate court and that is either the court of appeal or finally supreme court now set a tone as to what the correct interpretation will be. Of course it is the judges that say what the law is but I find you have enacted a law you know there is a school of thought that say that is not the law that the law is what the judges say it is and so where there are confence I mean the divergence like this then the appate process comes into harmonize and say this is the correct interpretation of the law and that becomes the law so I it is it's a it's a healthy development in our juris and there is nothing wrong in judges having divergence but there are ones that actually you know becomes a misconduct And I will say that if I'm given the opportunity uh and people have written and said about it but this particular case does not fall squarely within those misbehaviors we are talking about with our justices >> and if is forced to radically adjust this their current timetable in order to comply with these uh judgments what kind of administrative or logistical chaos could this uh trigger internally?

[00:07:36]Well, that's why we say that this let the appealate process you know be hastened up so that we can have a clearer clarity to what you know position will take an has gone on appeal with regards to justice judgment and I'm sure too that either SDP will go on appeal with justice or sure so part of the you know recommendation is that let it be handled by the same panel let it not be given to different uh panel of court of appeal so that there won't be you know contradiction further at that level. So let the same panel that has justice appeal process you know so be the one to consolidate the the case of justice to show and make a pronouncement that we now that either give now give clarity to because is waiting for clarity in order to know what to do for now uh the justice's judgment has actually produc introduced some level of you know uh ambiguity and that can can be cleared at the at the court of appeal and that should be done in an expedious expeditious manner. That is what we recommend that should be done fastly so that there won't be any crisis h you know to brew brewing you know as we head towards 20127 election we must avoid crisis we must avoid a situation where judgments you know we begin to create more doubt and then lack of coherence in the entire system we need coherence we need clarity and then we need a situation where in you know will operate under the rule of law that that again is very important so there must be clarity and we must try and do that, you know, in a in a manner that is with speed.

[00:09:13]>> But in the meantime, you know, some analysts are worried that excessive judicial intervention in electoral matters is gradually turning our courts into political battleground. You know, I'm just wondering if you share the same concern and what do you think can be done about this?

[00:09:29]>> Under the law, uh the judiciary has a role to uh to play in this resolution that that is anywhere in the world. Yes, I agree that we go to court a lot especially on political matter that is there is high level of desperation on the part of politicians you know that is the point and there are certain things we need to do probably on the level of the structure in the system in order to reduce this level of desperation but that is another topic for another day uh but as long as we have judicial system that uh its importance and responsibility is to resolve this boot this boot will certainly arise even within husband and wife and So the only arm of government under the law that has that responsibility to really resolve this is the court. But the point is that with the court must remain independent and that is and that is the safeguard.

[00:10:17]You know court must remain very independent. The court must be very bold and the court must be expeditious must be very fast in resolving these issues.

[00:10:26]Where we're having problem is where you begin to do forum shopping, do issue abuse expert orders and then begin to do certain things that is considered uh misconduct in unprofessional judicial misconduct. That is where the issues are. But the point is that when we have a very strong judiciary, it goes a long way in resolving this pool because this put must certainly arise. Then which arm of government supposed to resolve this is is the judiciary and so but we must ensure that that judiciary is clearly independent and very upright you know and then dispense justice irrespective of any person's status irrespective of who you are that is what we should rather exist that the that the judiciary is getting involved in political decisions and all that is because that is the arm of government that resolve this put and there is no other arm except we want to use gun and and match it in order to resolve our issues but as long as we have judiciary in any system it should be the But we disguarded that we must have a judiciary that is very bold enough that is very independent and then dispense justice without looking at any person and then without looking at the status of that individual. That is what we should always insist.

[00:11:29]>> Well, very well said Dr. Monday Ubani.

[00:11:32]Thank you so much for joining us for this discussion here on News Day.