The current Chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association Electoral Committee, and a former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law, Dr. Monday Ubani, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, (SAN), has faulted the Federal High Court’s order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to de-register certain political parties, describing the decision as a clear case of judicial overreach and an intrusion into powers constitutionally vested in the electoral body.
He said this while speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Wednesday.
“When the Federal High Court said ‘Do not accept any candidate from them or enter into any correspondence with those political parties, and they are not allowed to participate in the election, the forthcoming off-cycle election, and even the subsequent one in 2027,’ That was clearly overreaching,” he said.
Dr. Ubani maintained that while courts retain the power to review the actions of public institutions, they must refrain from assuming powers expressly vested in those institutions by the Constitution. According to him, INEC’s authority under Section 225A involves the exercise of discretion and administrative evaluation, and any judicial intervention should come only after the electoral body has acted, not before.
“If you have power under the law to exercise, can a court, in review or whatever, substitute its own opinion to that of an administrative body or an institution that has been given the authority to exercise that power?
“If you look at the provision of the constitution, it says, ‘INEC shall have power.’ The constitution did not say ‘INEC shall de-register.’ It didn’t use the word ‘shall de-register.’ It says, ‘INEC shall have power.’ And so, when an authority has been given to you to do a certain thing under the Act, then you have that power to actually carry out an administrative function in order to evaluate whether what you want to do will be in order. It is after that power has been exercised that you will now be subject to judicial review.
“That is where the court comes in, to know whether what you have done is clearly in violation of the law or clearly in conformance. That is where the judiciary comes in. The judiciary cannot come and begin to dictate to a body that is clearly independent, that has exclusivity in terms of exercise of power, what to do and what not to do. That is actually what has happened in this case, and that is what the Court of Appeal will actually determine,” he explained.
Dr. Ubani further expressed confidence that the dispute would be resolved without affecting the electoral process, noting that the Court of Appeal’s stay of execution has suspended the Federal High Court’s judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
“I’m very happy that the Court of Appeal has acted in a very timeless manner by granting a stay, and I can assure you that very soon this matter will be disposed of. For now, that particular judgment does not stand; that’s what it means if a stay of execution has been granted,” he noted.
On whether disciplinary action should follow, the SAN said judges cannot be punished merely for delivering decisions later found to be wrong, as the appellate process exists to correct such errors.
“I can assure you that the system also has a procedural measure for punishment if any misconduct is established. I want to say this: no judge in Nigeria will be punished for reaching a decision that somebody considers wrong because there is an appellate process. You have a right to go on appeal in order to challenge the decision of a lower court.”
He stressed, however, that sanctions may arise where judicial misconduct is established following a proper investigation, adding that lower courts must adhere to established precedents and decisions of higher courts.
“But where a judge reaches a decision, and then investigation is carried out and a misconduct is established, that is where you will now be punished,” he underscored.
Calling for urgent reforms to restore public trust in the judiciary, Dr. Ubani stressed that judicial independence, integrity, and courage are essential, insisting that only persons of high moral standing should be appointed to the bench.
“I want to say this: the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed. We must ensure that they’re very independent, very bold, and courageous because we’ve seen what other justices in other lands are doing with the issue of building their society.
“And the issue that the men we recruit into the process must be men that are clearly above board. Men that want to do justice, men that fear God, and men that want to ensure that their country survives. These are the kind of people that should come into the judicial cycle. Not every person should be there,” he insisted.
Explaining the concept of locus standi, the seasoned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, said Nigerian courts generally require a claimant to demonstrate personal injury before initiating public interest litigation, noting that despite some judicial attempts at liberalisation, the doctrine remains largely restrictive and continues to limit access to court in matters without direct individual harm.
“The present legal position—the present jurisprudence with regards to public interest litigation in Nigeria—is that locus standi, the way the court applies the concept, is a very restrictive approach. It’s a very restrictive approach saying, for you to succeed in public interest litigation, you must establish personal injury. Even though it is a public interest thing that involves larger members of the society, for you to succeed and have a standing before the court and have access, you must establish personal injury. In the absence of personal injury in your matter, you will not be allowed into the court at all. The court denies you access. That is the present position.
“So, the present position, just to answer your question, is that for you to succeed in public interest litigation today in Nigeria, you must establish personal injury. That law has not changed. Even with the latest decision of the Supreme Court, I mean, the Center for Oil Watch, it has not changed because the latest decision in 2025 says you must show that you have suffered personal injury before you can succeed in public interest litigation,” he explained.
Speaking on Justice Peter Lifu’s involvement in the controversy, Dr. Ubani said judges may make errors in the course of their duties, stressing that such decisions are subject to correction on appeal rather than condemnation. He added that only proven misconduct warrants disciplinary action, which must be determined by the appropriate authorities.
“As a civilized human being, he can make an error. And also, it’s a learning process; he is at the lower court. Our system has an inbuilt mechanism to correct such decisions that people consider wrong. So, I will not be here and crucify Justice Lifu. He’s a human being, he can make a mistake. That is how he understands the law.
“But now, the higher court will look at his decision. Does he have a right to substitute his own idea for that of an institution that has been empowered under the law to do the duty? Because there is a Supreme Court decision that affirms the power of INEC to compile the register.
“But if there is any misconduct established, that will be carried out by the appropriate authority that is given that responsibility, and they will punish him. If there is any misconduct—quote me—if there is any misconduct found in this decision, they will actually mete out punishment against him,” he concluded.
Favour Odima
Follow us on:
 weighs in on Justice Peter Lifu’s ruling, argues the Federal High Court overreached its authority.</p>
){kind=link}