Home:: Publications

Site News --> More                                           Public Service Statement 

INEC’s “Final” List of Candidates for the April Elections Shows a Regrettable, Self-Destructive Contempt for The Rule of Law in Nigeria

1. On 7th day of April, INEC released what it called the final list of candidates for the April 14th and 21st elections. We are gravely concerned that the aforesaid list does not contain the names of persons whose names INEC has been ordered, by various courts, to include as candidates in the elections. As at when INEC published this list, the following were subsisting decisions and orders of courts being flouted by the Commission;

(a) Federal High Court Order of Hon. Justice Abimbola Ogie, in Ukachukwu v. INEC. The Court ordered INEC to accept the names of Nicholas Ukachukwu and Rowland Odegba as the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) candidates for gubernatorial office in Anambra State. The court said as follows: “The Plaintiff having complied with section 34(1) of the Electoral Act 2006, it amounts to mischief and reprehensible act for the respondent (INEC) to have refused to publish his name.”

(b) Ngige v. INEC. Although there was no specific order of court enjoining the inclusion of the Plaintiffs name, the court said the exclusion of Dr. Ngige’s name based on the grounds asserted by INEC was inappropriate. INEC does not assert that it excludes Dr. Ngige’s name on any other ground.

(c) There is also an order from a Federal High Court enjoining INEC to include the name of Vice President Atiku Abubakar in its list of Candidates for the Presidential elections.

2. We understand that INEC has appealed all the decisions/orders reproduced above. INEC reportedly complied with the Supreme Court decision in Ararume v. INEC & 2 ors. Access to Justice welcomes the compliance with the Supreme Court decision in that case.

3. Access to Justice deplores, in the strongest terms however, INEC’s refusal to implement decisions of other courts, including those already referred to. 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!

4. 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.

5. This is so clearly not the role conceived for these other courts by the Constitution. In section 287 (2) and (3), our Constitution enjoins the immediate implementation of the decisions and orders of these courts now being snubbed by INEC. This is also not how the Supreme Court has interpreted the obligation to respect court judgments.

6.For instance, in Babatunde v. Olatunji, the Supreme Court, speaking through Achike JSC, said as follows;

“Matters appertaining to judicial orders or judgments, for that matter, are not generally treated with arrogance or levity. Speaking for myself, it is rather officious and treading on a perilous path for one to arrogate to oneself the right to choose and pick between court orders in terms of whether they are valid or null and void.”

In the same case, Katsina Alu JSC, remarked;

“The position clearly therefore is this. That a person who knows of a judgment, whether null or valid given against him, by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be permitted to disobey it. His unqualified obligation is to obey it unless and until that judgment has been set aside”.

7 In an earlier case, Shitta-Bey v. The Federal Public Service Commission, Idigbe JSC, speaking for the Supreme Court said;

““Coercion” we are told “is not always necessary to ensure that the law is obeyed. Litigants will often be content to ascertain their legal rights and duties safe in the knowledge that, once the law is determined, it will be observed. …. “Legal obligations” to which reference is made in the foregoing quotation, of course, include obligation to maintain the rule of law, as well as not to be in contempt of decisions of competent Courts; and I agree with Coker, J.C.A. … that it is, indeed, “contemptuous” on the part of the respondent as a public body to refuse to implement a declaratory order made in its presence by a competent Court in a suit to which it was a party.”

8. Access to Justice condemns the failure by INEC to abide by these court decisions and orders; we view this as a major threat to the authority of the judicial branch, and the principles of constitutional democracy. AJ urges the immediate enforcement of all court decisions and orders issued to, or against INEC, and urges INEC to make a good faith and serious commitment now, to respect the rule of law in Nigeria. Issued by;

Access to Justice

9E Badagry Raod, Off Marine Rd, Apapa, Lagos. Phone: 01 5871279, 8980330, 08037703676;Email: info@humanrightsnigeria.org
;www.humanrightsnigeria.org; 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.