By Peace Udugba
The ongoing legal dispute between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and a Federal High Court over the 2027 general election timetable has sparked renewed constitutional debate on the limits of administrative authority versus statutory provisions in Nigeria’s electoral framework.
Speaking on Tuesday on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, legal practitioner Monday Ubani weighed in on the implications of the case, stressing that the matter goes beyond INEC and strikes at the foundation of electoral legality in Nigeria.
Ubani said he had anticipated the appeal, noting that INEC would either comply with the judgment or challenge it at the appellate court. He suggested that the commission may believe its administrative guidelines should not be invalidated by the courts.
He argued that the appellate court may now be required to “resettle” the matter, particularly on whether subsidiary legislation can override the statutory framework that establishes 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 of law.
However, Ubani also acknowledged INEC’s position, noting that the commission may argue it requires administrative flexibility to ensure efficiency, credibility, and timeliness in electoral processes.
He described the situation as a legal tension between administrative convenience and strict statutory compliance, questioning the extent to which courts should interfere in INEC’s internal regulatory timelines.
He noted that while the Electoral Act grants INEC regulatory powers, such powers must operate strictly within constitutional and statutory limits.
Ubani pointed to Section 29 of the Electoral Act, stating that it creates political rights for parties and candidates that cannot be abridged by administrative guidelines.
According to him, INEC’s directive setting a 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 guaranteed under the Electoral Act.
“The court is saying you have administrative powers, but if that timeline encroaches on a right already given by law, it becomes inconsistent,” he said.
Ubani maintained that where there is inconsistency 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 added that while INEC may have acted in good faith to ensure order and efficiency, good intention cannot override legal rights.
He further noted that the Electoral Act has not been amended to alter the 120-day framework for submission of candidates, stressing that the law remains in force unless changed by the National Assembly.
Ubani also downplayed the assumption that INEC’s application for a stay of execution automatically suspends the ruling, explaining that courts must first be convinced before granting such relief. He said the court could instead order an accelerated hearing of the appeal.
He clarified that until a court rules otherwise, “the window remains open,” meaning politicians are still legally permitted to switch parties.
Criticising Nigeria’s political culture, Ubani said defections are often driven by opportunism rather than ideology, unlike in more established democracies where party affiliation is rooted in principles and values. He noted that Nigerian political parties are often treated as “vehicles to attain power” rather than ideological platforms.
He warned that frequent defections weaken democratic institutions and undermine opposition structures necessary for accountability.
Ubani reiterated that administrative guidelines cannot override statutory law, stating clearly: “There is no time administrative guideline can override a substantive law.” He explained Nigeria’s legal hierarchy, placing the Constitution at the top, followed by Acts of the National Assembly, and then subsidiary legislation such as INEC guidelines.
On allegations of fair hearing violations, he said the issue remains a threshold legal question for the appellate court and should not be pre-judged.
He also criticised Nigeria’s restrictive approach to public interest litigation, arguing that courts often require personal injury before granting standing in matters affecting collective rights.
CALLERS’ VIEW
During the phone-in segment, a caller accused politicians of rampant party-switching, citing examples of lawmakers in Ogun and Kano States who defected after elections, describing the situation as “democracy being raped.
In response, Ubani agreed that political culture remains the core challenge, not just legislation, adding that even where laws are strengthened, civic values and political orientation must also evolve.
He said granting INEC broader powers through legislation could help, but insisted that the deeper solution lies in political reorientation and ideological education.
Asked whether the appellate court’s decision could set a precedent, Ubani said the matter is likely to proceed to the Supreme Court due to its constitutional importance and time-sensitive nature. He added that courts typically fast-track electoral disputes because of their national significance.
Another caller criticised INEC for appealing a judgment they believed should strengthen electoral fairness, accusing the commission of wasting public funds. Ubani noted that the appeal is legally permissible and part of the normal development of electoral jurisprudence.
He clarified that his comments on defections were illustrative, not political, stressing that he spoke strictly as a legal practitioner.
Ubani concluded that Nigeria’s democratic progress depends on leadership accountability and citizens’ electoral choices, warning that without ideological clarity and civic responsibility, governance challenges will persist into future election cycles.
