INEC’s Disobedience To Court Judgments & Doctrine of Unlawful Exclusion Under Electoral Act 2022

1. Introduction

• This paper examines INEC’s growing disregard for subsisting court judgments, with particular focus on the unlawful exclusion of candidates under the Electoral Act, 2022. It highlights the case of National Rescue Movement (NRM) v. INEC (FHC/ABJ/CS/45/2025) and the grave implications of INEC’s disobedience for democracy, judicial authority, and electoral integrity.

2. Philosophical & Historical Context

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ‘The Cost of Discipleship’ (1937) and Albert Camus’ ‘The Plague’ (1947) both underscore a moral imperative: resistance to injustice and indifference. Their insights are relevant in Nigeria today where institutional complacency threatens the democratic order.

3. The Role of Judiciary and INEC in State Stability

• Retiring Justices have sounded the alarm: Justice Musa Dattijo decried unpredictability and intrigue in recent judicial decisions; Justice Oludotun Adefope-Okojie declared that ‘nobody will invest in a country with a bad judiciary.’ The credibility of Nigeria’s judiciary and electoral umpire are central to national progress.

4. Case Study: NRM v. INEC (2025)

• Court Judgment (Justice O.A. Egwuatu, 5 March 2025): ordered INEC to recognize NRM’s National Executives from its January 17, 2025, Convention.
• INEC’s Conduct: disregarded judgment; inserted unknown governorship candidate on its portal.
• Procedural Breach: INEC’s subsequent leave to appeal was filed out of time (beyond the statutory 90-day window).

5. Legal Framework on Unlawful Exclusion

• Section 29(1)– (3), Electoral Act, 2022 – mandates INEC to publish validly nominated candidates.
• Section 84(13) – only invalid primaries justify exclusion; INEC has no discretion otherwise.
• Section 134(1)(d) – unlawful exclusion is a ground for election petitions.

6. Case Law:

• Action Congress v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1048) 220: INEC cannot disqualify a valid candidate.
• PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1316) 85 (SC): only parties can sponsor candidates.
• Labour Party v. INEC (2011): unlawful exclusion voids elections if proven.

7. Implications of INEC’s Conduct

• Undermines judicial authority.
• Subverts democratic choice.
• Violates constitutional and statutory provisions.
• Creates fertile ground for endless litigation and instability.

8. Call for Accountability

• INEC must publish all relevant documents (Forms EC9, EC13, nomination letters, correspondence) relating to NRM’s candidate nomination. Mahmood Yakubu must be held personally accountable for placing the Commission above the law.

9. Conclusion

• Unchecked defiance of court judgments erodes democracy. As Jefferson observed, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Nigeria must act now to demand judicial obedience from its electoral umpire, or risk losing democracy itself.

More elaborate details on INEC’s rascality and disobedience to court judgments to be published in subsequent bulletin…

Read also:

INEC Chairman: Treatise on How Mahmood Yakubu Ruled and Ruined INEC and Why Character Matters

Okoro Chinedum Benedict is the National Administrative Secretary of National Rescue Movement (NRM).