As political activities begin to build ahead of the 2027 general elections, constitutional lawyer, Monday Ubani, SAN, has stated that the absence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at party congresses, conventions, or primaries does not automatically invalidate such exercises.
Ubani, who spoke amid growing concerns over internal party processes, said the validity of party activities is primarily determined by compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, rather than the physical presence of INEC officials.
According to him, the law mandates political parties to notify INEC ahead of any congress, convention, or primary election, but does not make the commission’s attendance a condition for validity.
“The law is clear. Political parties are required to give adequate notice to INEC, but the commission’s role is largely supervisory,” he said. “Where a party has fulfilled its obligation by notifying INEC, its absence does not, in itself, invalidate the process.”
Citing Section 82 of the Electoral Act, Ubani explained that the critical requirement is proper notification to the electoral body within the stipulated timeframe. He noted that the law provides consequences for failure to notify INEC but does not prescribe penalties where the commission, after being duly informed, fails to attend.
“The implication is that the law sanctions non-compliance by political parties, not non-attendance by INEC,” he added.
Ubani further argued that Nigerian courts, in disputes arising from party primaries, have consistently focused on whether due process was followed, rather than on whether INEC officials were physically present.
According to him, judicial decisions have drawn a clear distinction between failure to notify INEC and the commission’s absence, maintaining that only the former is capable of undermining the validity of a party exercise.
He also stressed that INEC’s presence at any political event does not automatically validate an otherwise flawed process.
“A congress or primary conducted in breach of party constitutions, guidelines, or statutory provisions remains liable to be set aside, regardless of whether INEC monitored it,” he said.
On recent controversies surrounding party conventions, Ubani noted that situations involving subsisting court orders must be treated differently. He explained that where a court of competent jurisdiction restrains a political party or INEC from participating in a process, such an order must be obeyed.
“In such cases, the issue goes beyond INEC’s absence. Any action taken in defiance of a valid court order is liable to be nullified,” he said.
He warned that allowing INEC’s absence alone to determine the validity of party processes could create constitutional challenges and grant the electoral body undue influence over internal party affairs.
“If INEC can effectively invalidate party processes by merely failing to attend, it would amount to giving the commission veto power over internal party democracy, which is not the intention of the law,” he stated.
Ubani further cautioned that such a precedent could open the door to manipulation, selective participation, and instability in candidate nomination processes across political parties.
Reaffirming his position, the senior advocate maintained that party congresses, conventions, or primaries remain valid where there is full compliance with legal requirements, including proper notification to INEC, adherence to party constitutions and guidelines, and absence of any restraining court order.
However, he added that such processes may still be invalidated in instances of non-notification, defective notice, violation of party rules, exclusion of delegates, or proven irregularities.
“The decisive issue is compliance with the law, not the presence or absence of INEC officials,” he emphasised.
