A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Monday Ubani, has expressed concerns over the House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Matters' directive to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to disqualify candidates whose names are allegedly not contained in their political parties' membership registers. Ubani argued that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case involving INEC and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) did not direct the electoral commission to disqualify any individual candidate whose name had already been published.
The House Committee on Electoral Matters, chaired by Bayo Balogun, had asked INEC to audit the membership registers of political parties and disqualify candidates whose names are not contained in the registers submitted to the commission. The committee relied on Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 and the Supreme Court's recent judgment restoring the provisions. However, Ubani questioned the legal authority of the House committee to confer such a power on INEC through a letter.
Ubani emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision should not be interpreted as an order directing INEC to remove candidates from lists it had already published. According to him, the central question is whether the apex court actually made such an order and, if it did not, what legal authority the House committee has to confer such a power on INEC through a letter. Ubani further questioned the validity of using an ordinary letter from a House Committee as a basis for conferring new powers on INEC.
The senior lawyer maintained that a committee of the National Assembly cannot, by correspondence, amend the Electoral Act, create a new power of disqualification or enlarge the scope of an order made by the Supreme Court. Ubani stated that a Committee letter cannot amend the Electoral Act, create a new power of disqualification, or enlarge the orders of the Supreme Court. He stressed that the Supreme Court's judgment in the ZLP case restored the validity of the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act but did not determine the eligibility or nomination of individual candidates.
The Supreme Court, in its September 24 judgment, allowed INEC's appeal and restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which had earlier been invalidated by the Court of Appeal. The apex court held that the provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. Section 77(5) provides that only members whose names appear on a political party's membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention may participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6) prevents a political party from using a different membership register for such exercises, while Section 77(7) provides that a party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period cannot field a candidate for an election. The House committee subsequently urged INEC to verify candidates against the relevant party registers and enforce the provisions of the Electoral Act. However, Ubani contends that there is an important distinction between the restoration and enforceability of a statutory provision and an order disqualifying particular candidates.
Ubani's argument echoes his earlier legal analysis of the Supreme Court judgment, in which he argued that the validity of Sections 77 and 84 did not automatically invalidate every nomination and that INEC could not rely solely on the ZLP judgment to remove names it had already published. His position highlights the need for clarity on the legal implications of the Supreme Court's judgment and the powers of the House committee in relation to INEC's actions.
Key points
- Dr. Monday Ubani questions the legal basis for the House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Matters' directive to INEC.
- The Supreme Court's judgment in the ZLP case did not direct INEC to disqualify any individual candidate whose name had already been published.
- A committee of the National Assembly cannot, by correspondence, amend the Electoral Act or create a new power of disqualification.
