Home:: Publications

Site News --> More

Rule of Law Subversion is Proving Costly for INEC, and for Nigeria

On Monday, 16th April, the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that INEC had no powers to disqualify any candidates for political office, and ordered INEC to include the Vice-President Atiku’s name on the ballot. Prior to this time, INEC had blatantly refused to comply with lower Courts’ orders to include the Vice-President’s name on the ballot, insisting it was only the Supreme Court’s voice it would obey in this regard. Access to Justice has denounced INEC’s repeated disrespect for judicial authority, on the ground that INEC was obligated to respect every court’s decision and orders, but nevertheless, welcomes its obedience to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

This decision by the Supreme Court will have important implications for the other cases where INEC impudently excluded candidates from participation in the electoral process in defiance of court-enjoined orders. This happened, particularly, in Anambra State where two different high courts ordered INEC to include the names of Nicholas Ukachukwu and Dr. Chris Ngige as gubernatorial candidates for the elections. The implication of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that INEC should not have excluded these candidates in the first place. The Supreme Court’s decision supplements the respective high courts decisions in favour of these candidates, and puts it beyond question that the elections in Anambra State cannot stand because of the unconstitutional exclusion of eligible candidates from those elections.

Even outside of the Supreme Court’s decision, INEC placed the elections in Anambra State at clear risk of nullification because of INEC’s flagrant insubordination to judicial authority. This outcome would have been prevented if INEC had acted sooner to implement eligibility orders and decisions given by various courts on particular candidates. INEC, without legal justification or statutory authority purported to choose the court whose decision or orders it will respect, and those it will ignore or denigrate. This is notwithstanding a fairly well-established body of jurisprudence establishing that a court’s decision, once rendered, is peremptory and obligatory until set aside by a higher court.

The point cannot be overstated, that in a constitutional democracy like ours, Courts play a significant role in interpreting and defending the Constitution, so that court decisions and orders are entitled of necessity, to respectful compliance. There is no right conferred on any individual or agency to choose the courts whose decisions or orders they would accept to implement. It is so self-evident that if such a right existed, no one might accept to be bound by any court short of the Supreme Court. In fact, if we extend this logic a little further, it would embrace the discretion to decide whether or not to obey the Supreme Court itself!

The discretion INEC has brazenly, but illicitly appropriated to itself has the effect of trivializing and ultimately destroying the constitutional right of access to court, a right so fundamental to the sustainance of our legal system, the rule of law, and democratic governance. The precedent set by INEC would make other courts (other the Supreme Court) inconsequential, superfluous and wasteful institutional actors, relevant only for the ritual value they add to the process leading up to the Supreme Court. This is so clearly not the role conceived for these other courts by the Constitution

What INEC has done basically is shooting itself in the foot, and wasting billions of scarce, needed resources appropriated to it for the conduct of the elections. This is because, if elections are challenged in those states where INEC negated court orders and excluded candidates - as they probably would – INEC would have to conduct repeat elections in those States, (including Anambra State).

Conducting fresh elections will require more (scarce) financial resources, will put candidates to greater financial, physical, and emotional strain, may congest and overstretch the electoral timetable, and may create unforeseen problems for a fledging democracy. And all this was clearly avoidable. It is clear therefore, that though it is of itself, exigent to observe the rule of law and maintain a healthy respect for adjudicative authority, failure to do so can also ultimately have a devastating effect on a Country’s economy, direction and, stability.

Prof. Iwu’s led INEC is making Nigeria and Nigerians pay a high price for the failure of INEC to live up to its rule-of-law obligations and expectations. INEC and its leadership need to be held more accountable for their own failures and the consequences of those failures.

Signed,

Joseph Chu’ma Otteh
Executive Director

Access to Justice defends the rule of law, the integrity and independence of judicial and legal institutions, and rights of access to justice. AJ is an independent, non-partisan, non-political and non-profit making organization. AJ does not seek, and does not receive funding from political or partisan groups, and has no relationship with any political group.