INEC: How ‘One Political Party’ Served Us 70 Court Processes In 1 Day To Bend Electoral Rule

Professor Mahmood Yakubu, chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has frowned on incessant attempts to drag the commission behind its schedule for the 2023 general election through unrealistic lawsuits.

According to Yakubu, INEC was served no fewer than 70 court processes by “one political party” in a bid to compel the commission to recognize its candidate for the 2023 election in violation of the Electoral Act.

He said such lawsuit suits are being instituted by “litigation-happy individuals and parties” who not only waste precious time of the courts but also eat into INEC’s time needed for preparation for the 2023 election.

The INEC boss spoke on Monday at a capacity-building workshop organized for justices and judges who will be presiding on election-related cases.

The 4-day workshop will afford INEC, the judges, lawyers, and election experts, amongst others, the opportunity to interact and enhance their understanding of the Electoral Act 2022 to help in the determination of election disputes by the Court of Appeal.

He said, “We have studied the judgements of the Tribunals arising from both the 2019 General Election, the off-cycle Governorship elections and the bye-elections conducted so far. We identified areas where we need to do more to reduce litigations. As a result, we are witnessing increasingly less Court cases challenging the conduct of elections by the Commission. However, cases arising from the conduct of primaries for the nomination of candidates by political parties is on the increase.

“So far, we have been joined in about 600 cases relating to the conduct of recent primaries and nomination of candidates by political parties for the 2023 General Election. Only two weeks ago, one political party served about 70 Court processes on the Commission in one day seeking to compel us to accept the nomination or substitution of its candidates long after the deadline provided in the Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2023 General Election had elapsed. Some of the cases will go up to the Supreme Court. The implication is that we are still dealing with issues of nomination of candidates thereby eating into vital time for preparation of and procurement of sensitive materials for the materials. It also means that the Courts will be dealing with the same issues long after the General Election.

“I wish to reassure the judiciary that the Commission will continue to abide by Court orders. However, strict adherence to stare decisis is critical for us as an Election Management Body. A situation where a trial Court sought to vary the judgement of the Supreme Court by ordering the Commission to issue a Certificate of Return in favour of a candidate whose emergence during the party’s primary election has been nullified by the apex Court (and affirmed by the same Court following an application for clarification) put the Commission in a difficult situation. The matter is currently being litigated again, possibly all the way back to the Supreme Court, thereby wasting the precious time of the Courts which are already inundated by even the most improbable cases by litigation-happy individuals and parties.”