A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Monday Ubani, has queried the legal basis for the directive by the House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Matters to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the disqualification of candidates whose names are allegedly not in their political parties’ membership registers.
The Supreme Court’s recent judgement in the case between the Independent National Electoral Commission and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) did not order the electoral body to dismiss any individual candidate whose name had already been published, Daily Independent reported.
Poster Layout – SDP
His statement comes on the heels of a letter by the House Committee on Electoral Matters, led by Bayo Balogun, asking INEC to audit the membership registers of political parties and reject candidates whose names are not included in the registers provided to the Commission.
The decision was based on Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 and the recent judgement of the Supreme Court reinstating the restrictions.
But Ubani said the Supreme Court ruling should not be mistaken for an instruction to the INEC to delete names in lists it had already published.
The crux of the matter was whether the apex court had made such an order and if it had not, what legal backing did the House committee have to give such power to INEC through a letter.
“Did the Supreme Court really decide that? Ubani enquired.
He further asked: “Since when does a mere letter from a House Committee become law or confer new powers on INEC?
The senior lawyer contended that a committee of the National Assembly cannot change the Electoral Act by correspondence, create a new power of disqualification or expand the scope of an order made by the Supreme Court.
He added: “A Committee letter cannot amend the Electoral Act, create a new power of disqualification, or enlarge the orders of the Supreme Court.
Ubani said what the Supreme Court ruling on the ZLP case upheld were the challenged parts of the Electoral Act, but did not rule on the eligibility or nomination of individual candidates.
In its ruling delivered on September 24, the Supreme Court granted the appeal filed by the INEC and reinstated Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which were earlier declared null and void by the Court of Appeal. The supreme court held that the clauses were not in variance with the 1999 Constitution.
Section 77(5) says only members whose names are on the membership register of a political party submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention can participate in the exercise. (6) prohibits a political party from employing another membership register for such activities and (7) states that a party that does not submit its membership register within the prescribed time shall not be able to field a candidate for an election.
The House committee later requested INEC to cross-check the candidates with the appropriate party registers and apply the provisions of the Electoral Act.
Ubani nevertheless maintains that there is a fundamental difference between the restoration and enforceability of a law provision and an order disqualifying certain candidates.
He said, “If the Supreme Court did not order INEC to disqualify candidates, what authority does a House Committee have to try to do that through a letter?”
His view is a reflection of his earlier legal analysis of the Supreme Court judgement, where he contended that the constitutionality of Sections 77 and 84 does not mean that every nomination is invalid and that INEC cannot simply fall back on the ZLP judgement to delete names it has already published.
About the Author
