A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, (SAN), and former NBA second national vice president, Dr Monday Onyekachi Ubani, has said the Supreme Court has finally settled the controversy over party autonomy by upholding statutory provisions governing political parties’ membership registers and internal electoral processes.
He said this while speaking in interview on ARISE NEWS on Monday, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Electoral Act.
Ubani said the judgment affirmed the requirement for political parties to submit their membership registers to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention.
“The Supreme Court has finally laid to rest the issue of party autonomy.
“So if you want to run for an election or be a voter, your name must be in the electronic register of the political parties. The law says they must submit that register 21 days before your primary, convention, or congress. If you don’t do that, of course your party will be excluded from having a candidate for the election.
“The Supreme Court has finally settled that issue that if you want to run for an election, the National Assembly has made an enactment, an act that guides that process. That process will lead to a guideline that INEC set up. INEC says submit your register within a specific time. So by upholding the act, the court has also upheld the guideline of INEC.”
Speaking on the implications, Ubani said a political party cannot rely on a different membership register from the one earlier submitted to INEC, adding that aspirants can challenge such non-compliance in court under Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act.
“As I said earlier, your name must be there. Subsection (6) says you cannot use another register other than the one you have submitted earlier. So if at the end of the day the party chooses to use another register different from the one they have submitted, that again becomes an issue for which an aspirant can go to court under Section 84(2) to say this man has not complied with the act itself or the guideline of INEC.
“So it’s a very serious matter, unlike the 2010 Electoral Act that does not have any penalty clause if you fail to submit your register. Remember that some political parties in 2023 were accused of not submitting any register to INEC. But under the 2022 Act, they made that amendment and took care of it. Look, there are consequences if you fail to submit your register prior to your congress, convention, or primary election. So it has implications.”
Speaking on possible legal challenges to party candidacies, Dr Ubani said the judgment does not automatically empower INEC to remove candidates, noting that only an aspirant with legal standing can challenge a candidate’s eligibility in court.
“I don’t think that judgment itself is self-executing. I don’t think INEC will now begin to look into any register, especially for those names that have been published, and say remove this name. INEC on its own cannot, because that will be an exercise of judicial function. It’s only the judiciary that has a right. It’s only an aspirant who has locus standi that can go to court and say this person did not comply, his name is not in the register. So it’s only an aspirant that the law allows to do that, and the court will now be in a position to look at it. But of course, remember that 14 days must have elapsed. So if you want to take it now as a pre-election issue, you are statutory barred, unless the matter is already pending.”
Turning to the defection syndrome in parties, Ubani said the ruling would make it harder for politicians to switch parties shortly before primaries, as their names must appear on a membership register submitted to INEC 21 days before the exercise.
“That was the reason for this enactment by the National Assembly. It was there initially, but there were no consequences. But that can no longer happen in the light of this particular provision that says your name must be in the register, and that name must have been submitted 21 days before the primaries. So if your name is not in the register, of course it becomes an issue for which any aspirant can challenge.”
On the responsibility for maintaining accurate party membership records, Ubani said political parties, not INEC, are responsible for keeping and submitting their registers, warning that failure to submit them 21 days before primaries could prevent a party from fielding candidates.
“Not INEC. It is the party. The party will take your name, your address, your gender, and some other requirements. Address is very key, your name is very key, your gender, and your state. Those are the requirements, so it is the party that keeps the record and then submits.”
Addressing the case of Kingsley Chinda, Ubani said any challenge to his candidacy would depend on whether his name appeared on the party’s membership register submitted to INEC 21 days before the primary.
“”Concerning Chinda, it is the facts of what I have just analyzed this morning that will be used. One, somebody must have challenged him. Remember, it’s a pre-election issue, so you have 14 days to challenge him. If INEC has already published his name—I think somebody has, there is an existing court case, and it has to do with non-compliance with the Electoral Act—of course it becomes an issue.
“But what I’m saying is INEC cannot on its own, single-handedly, do any removal of any name, especially those names that INEC has published. Somebody must have challenged, and then you check: was his name in the register of the political party submitted 21 days before his emergence in the primary?
“Only the court can remove it, and it is based upon the fact of non-compliance.”
On the ₦2 million fine imposed on the Zenith Labour Party, the SAN said the sanction was intended to discourage frivolous appeals while preserving the right of parties and individuals to seek judicial redress on genuine cases.
“The Supreme Court is also being careful not to open the door for every frivolous appeal. So when you come with such an appeal, they inflict you with a penalty.”
On the connection between the ZLP, SDP and YPP cases, Ubani said they involved challenges to INEC’s electoral guidelines, with the courts examining their consistency with the Electoral Act and the Constitution.
“I think those ones also had issues challenging the guidelines. The guidelines of INEC. INEC enacted guidelines to guide the entire process. The issue was, were those guidelines constitutional? Were they in accordance with the Electoral Act, or were they in accordance with the Constitution?
“It is a universal principle in law that if the electoral guideline conflicts with the Constitution or even with the Electoral Act, an Act of National Assembly is higher in terms of grade, and the guideline is a subsidiary legislation. That law is still applicable.”
Ubani emphasised that the Supreme Court judgment upholding Electoral Act provisions on party membership registers has strengthened INEC’s enforcement and monitoring powers, but stressed that each candidate’s eligibility depends on specific facts and evidence of compliance.
“What has happened is INEC’s power now is strengthened, and that is the truth. INEC’s enforceability and monitoring power is strengthened, so INEC has done well by pursuing this matter to the Supreme Court. INEC is on firm ground now. But then, it is individual facts of the case that will determine whether somebody is qualified or not, and that’s very important.”
Favour Odima
Follow us on:
