Muyiwa D. Ilegbusi Esq
The question of whether the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) can force a political party to accept or field a particular candidate is one that goes to the heart of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. It raises important issues concerning the autonomy of political parties, the statutory responsibilities of INEC, and the supervisory role of the courts in electoral disputes. A careful examination of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022, and judicial decisions leads to one conclusion: INEC has no constitutional or statutory power to impose candidates on political parties.
Political parties are voluntary associations recognized under the Constitution. By virtue of Sections 221 to 229 of the Constitution, they are vested with the responsibility of sponsoring candidates for elections. The process of selecting those candidates is fundamentally an internal affair of each political party, subject to compliance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and the party’s own constitution and guidelines.
The Electoral Act, 2022 reinforces this principle by requiring political parties to conduct primaries in accordance with democratic procedures. INEC’s role is essentially supervisory. It monitors party primaries to ensure compliance with the law, receives the names of nominated candidates, and publishes them. At no point does the Act authorize INEC to determine who should emerge as a party’s candidate.
The distinction between supervision and selection is significant. INEC may observe whether a primary election substantially complies with the law, but it cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the political party by selecting a candidate. To do so would amount to an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of political parties and would undermine the freedom of association guaranteed under Section 40 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the nomination of candidates is primarily the business of political parties. Although the courts may intervene where statutory provisions or party rules are violated, neither the courts nor INEC can simply choose candidates for political parties. Judicial intervention is aimed at enforcing compliance with the law rather than replacing the discretion of the political party.
This does not mean that political parties possess unlimited discretion. Their powers are circumscribed by law. Where a party conducts a primary election contrary to the Electoral Act or its own constitution, the nomination may be challenged before the courts. Likewise, where a candidate is constitutionally disqualified or the nomination process is invalidated by a competent court, INEC is obligated to act in accordance with the court’s decision. In such circumstances, INEC is not imposing a candidate; rather, it is implementing the law as declared by the judiciary.
Similarly, INEC may decline to accept nominations that fail to satisfy statutory requirements. Such administrative decisions do not amount to forcing candidates on political parties. They merely ensure that political parties comply with the legal framework governing elections.
This distinction becomes particularly important in disputes arising from party primaries. If a political party’s National Working Committee nullifies a primary election in accordance with its constitution and validly submits another candidate within the time permitted by law, INEC generally has no authority to reject that submission merely because another faction disagrees. Conversely, if a court subsequently determines that the substitution or nomination violated the law, INEC must give effect to that judgment. Again, INEC’s role remains administrative rather than discretionary.
The constitutional design deliberately separates these functions. Political parties nominate candidates. INEC administers elections and ensures compliance with electoral laws. The judiciary resolves disputes arising from nominations and elections. Allowing INEC to dictate who a political party should sponsor would collapse these constitutional boundaries and compromise the Commission’s neutrality.
The independence of INEC, guaranteed under Section 153 and Paragraph 15 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, is intended to ensure impartial election administration, not to confer powers of political decision-making. The Commission’s legitimacy depends upon its remaining an impartial umpire rather than becoming an active participant in party affairs.
In conclusion, INEC cannot force candidates on political parties. Its constitutional mandate is limited to monitoring party primaries, receiving and publishing nominations, ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act, and implementing binding judgments of competent courts. The authority to nominate candidates belongs exclusively to political parties, subject only to the requirements of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and judicial oversight. Any attempt by INEC to impose a candidate would exceed its constitutional powers and offend the principles of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
Post a Comment