The ongoing legal battle between the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the Federal High Court over the 2027 general election timetable has sparked renewed constitutional debate in Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence, particularly on the limits of administrative authority versus statutory provisions.
Speaking on Tuesday, on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese Ijebu, Ogun State, Monday Ubani, weighed in extensively on the implications of the case, stressing that the dispute goes beyond INEC and touches the foundation of electoral legality in Nigeria.
Ubani confirmed that he had anticipated the appeal, noting, “that it is either INEC will obey that judgment or probably appeal,” adding that the commission may believe its administrative measures should not be invalidated by the courts.
He argued that the appellate court may now be required to “resettle” the matter, especially as it concerns whether subsidiary legislation can override the statutory framework that empowers it.
According to him, “a subsidiary legislation should not be superior to the superior enactment that actually gave birth to it,” insisting that this remains a settled principle in law.
However, Ubani also acknowledged INEC’s possible justification, noting that the commission may argue it needs administrative flexibility to ensure efficiency, credibility, and timeliness in electoral processes.
He framed the legal tension as one between administrative convenience and statutory compliance, asking whether courts should interfere in INEC’s internal regulatory timelines.
Ubani noted that the Electoral Act grants INEC regulatory powers, but maintained that such powers must operate within constitutional and statutory boundaries.
He pointed out that the controversy largely revolves around Section 29 of the Electoral Act, which he said creates political rights for parties and candidates that cannot be abridged by administrative rules.
According to him, INEC’s guideline setting a May deadline for submission of party registers effectively “shortened rights already accruing to politicians,” which the court found problematic.
He explained that although INEC has no express statutory timeline for party registers, any guideline it issues must not conflict with rights already guaranteed under the Electoral Act.
“The court is saying you have a right for administrative powers, but if that timeline encroaches upon a right already given by law, it becomes inconsistent,” he said.
Ubani maintained that where inconsistency exists between administrative guidelines and statutory provisions, the court is bound to declare such guidelines “null and void to the extent of their inconsistency.”
When asked whether the Federal High Court correctly interpreted Section 29, Ubani responded cautiously, saying, “If you ask me, there is some sense in what the court said.”
He admitted that while INEC acted in good faith to ensure order and efficiency, good intention cannot override legal rights, adding that he would, from a public interest perspective, align with the court’s reasoning.
He further noted that the Electoral Act has not been amended to alter the 120-day framework for submission of candidates, emphasizing that the law remains “static” unless formally changed by the National Assembly.
Ubani also downplayed the assumption that INEC’s application for a stay of execution guarantees suspension of the ruling, explaining that courts must first be convinced before granting such relief.
He said courts may instead opt for expedited hearing of the appeal rather than automatically granting a stay of execution.
Ubani also clarified that until a court expressly rules otherwise, “the window remains open,” meaning politicians are still legally permitted to switch parties.
He criticized Nigeria’s political culture, arguing that defections are driven more by opportunism than ideology, unlike in developed democracies where party affiliation is value-based and stable.
According to him, Nigeria’s political system suffers from weak ideological grounding, where political parties are often treated as “vehicles to attain power” rather than platforms of principle.
Ubani warned that this culture of frequent movement undermines democracy and weakens opposition structures needed for accountability.
He stressed that administrative guidelines can never override statutory law, stating clearly: “There is no time administrative guideline can override a substantive law.”
He explained the hierarchy of laws in Nigeria, placing the Constitution at the top, followed by Acts of the National Assembly, and then subsidiary regulations such as INEC guidelines.
On allegations that INEC may have violated fair hearing principles, Ubani said such issues are threshold matters for the appellate court to determine and should not be pre-judged.
He also used the opportunity to critique Nigeria’s restrictive approach to public interest litigation, arguing that courts often require personal injury before granting standing in cases affecting collective rights.
CALLERS VIEW
During the open discussion segment, a caller accused politicians of rampant party-switching, citing examples of lawmakers in Ogun and Kano who defected after elections, a situation he described as “democracy being raped.”
In response, Ubani agreed that political culture remains the core problem, not just legislation, adding that even if laws are amended, values and civic orientation must change first.
He said granting INEC broader powers through legislation could help, but insisted that the deeper solution lies in political reorientation and ideological education.
When asked whether the appellate court ruling could set a precedent, Ubani said the matter is likely to proceed to the Supreme Court due to its constitutional sensitivity and time-bound nature.
He also noted that courts tend to fast-track politically sensitive electoral matters because of their national implications.
Another caller criticized INEC for appealing a judgment they believed should strengthen electoral fairness, accusing the commission of wasting public funds, a view Ubani summarized as support for the lower court’s ruling.
He reiterated that INEC’s appeal is legally permissible and part of normal judicial expansion of electoral jurisprudence.
Ubani further clarified that his reference to party defections was illustrative, not political endorsement, insisting he was speaking strictly as a lawyer and not as a partisan actor.
Ubani concluded that Nigeria’s transformation depends on leadership accountability and citizens’ electoral choices, warning that without ideological clarity and civic responsibility, governance challenges will persist into future election cycles.
