|
Listen to article
|
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana has warned that conflicting court judgments involving the Independent National Electoral Commission ahead of the 2027 general elections could create uncertainty capable of undermining the electoral process if not urgently addressed.
In a statement titled “Nigerian Judges and Lawyers Should Be Prevented From Sabotaging the 2027 Election,” Falana criticised what he described as contradictory rulings delivered by judges of coordinate jurisdiction on the powers of INEC to fix timelines for party primaries and submission of membership registers.
According to him, the conflicting decisions have placed INEC in a difficult position, as the commission now appears free to decide which judgment to obey.
The senior advocate said such inconsistencies from courts of equal jurisdiction could weaken public confidence in the judiciary and the electoral process.
He maintained that judges and lawyers must avoid actions capable of destabilising preparations for the 2027 polls, noting that legal disputes should not be used to create confusion around electoral procedures.
The statement reads, “Last Wednesday, the Federal High Court invalidated the timeline issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the conduct of primaries and the nomination of candidates, ahead of the 2027 general election. In a judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar, the Court also set aside the INEC’s May 10 deadline requiring political parties to submit a register and database of all their members as a condition for qualifying to participate in the general elections.
“It held that the time frame the electoral umpire announced for political parties to conduct their primaries and to submit, withdraw, or replace the names and particulars of their candidates for the general elections “is inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.” The case was filed against INEC by the Youth Party.
“Yesterday, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appealed against the Federal High Court’s judgement which nullified its revised timetable and schedule of activities for the conduct of the 2027 general elections. INEC also filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgement, pending the hearing and determination of its appeal at the Court of Appeal.
“Today, the Federal High Court affirmed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has the legal authority to fix timelines within which political parties must conduct their primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections. In the judgment, the court held that INEC is empowered under the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026 to issue election timetables that include deadlines for political party primaries and related preparatory activities.
“Justice J.K. Omotosho who delivered the judgment declared that Election Timetable is a chain of events or actions which include submission of membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of primaries and fix timeframes within which political parties are to organize their primary Elections for the purpose of the stated 2027 Election”. The case was filed by the Social Democratic Party against INEC.
“The judgments of the both courts of coordinate jurisdiction has caused unnecessary confusion in the polity. While Justice Muhammed Umar of the Federal High Court has limited INEC’s powers by barring it from imposing deadlines that conflict with statutory provisions, Justice A. K. Omotosho of the same Court has affirmed INEC’s authority to issue timetable that includes timelines for party primaries. INEC has been empowered to choose and pick which of the judgments to complied with.
“The National Judicial Council had repeatedly cautioned Judges to desist from issuing conflicting orders whilst lawyers have equally been warned by the Nigerian Bar Association to stop filing cases that are programmed to cause Judges to issue conflicting orders. In the instant case, Justice Omotosho ought to have allowed the Court of Appeal to determine the validity of the judgment of Justice Muhammed Umar instead of issuing conflicting orders.
“The National Judicial Council and the Nigerian Bar Association should speedily investigate the circumstances surrounding the issuance of conflicting orders in the cases of Youth Party v INEC and Social Democratic Party v INEC.
“Unless the Judges and lawyers involved in the legal charade are called to order, the 2027 election may be sabotaged by Judges and lawyers as was the case in 1993 when the Ibrahim Babangida military junta anchored the annulment of the results of the June 12 presidential election on conflicting orders of Nigerian courts.”
Human rights activist Omoyele Sowore has declared interest to run for presidency under the African Action Congress, AAC.
Sowore made this declaration on Friday while responding to questions in an interview on ‘Politics Today’, a programme on Channels Television.
When asked if he would be the sole candidate of the party, Sowore said, “Let the party decide.
“I plan to contest the 2027 presidency. We have not finally submitted list of online registered members. And that’s what the court judgment said.
“So, if you have submitted now, the court says you can reopen your portal and start again. We never stopped anyway.
“Our party started online registration in 2018 when no party was doing it. In 2022, they asked everybody to submit their register. We were the only party that submitted a complete party register to INEC.”
The Nigerian Bar Association has publicly rebuked human rights activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore following a confrontation at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday that drew widespread attention after video footage of the episode circulated online. Sowore has denied the association’s characterization of events and accused its leadership of building its response on what he described as falsehoods.
The NBA described the incident, which occurred on March 24, as a grave concern. According to the association, Sowore entered the courtroom with a number of individuals carrying camera phones and recording equipment, proceeded to set up what appeared to be preparations for a press conference, and had members of his team attend to him in a manner it likened to a broadcast setting. He then moved into the inner bar, sat on one of the tables, and addressed the cameras on what he described as a range of national issues. His case was not listed for hearing on the day, and he was not accompanied by a legal practitioner.
The development triggered a confrontation with Senior Advocate of Nigeria Musibau Adetunbi, who objected to the conduct inside the courtroom. A video of the exchange showed Sowore responding to Adetunbi’s objection: “You’re intimidating me and insulting my intelligence because you’re introducing yourself to me as a SAN. I also have my own SANs.” Order was restored after a court official intervened. Sowore maintained throughout that no violation had occurred, arguing that the judge had not yet taken the bench and the space was accessible to the public.
NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, issued a formal statement condemning the episode on Wednesday. “Courtrooms in a constitutional democracy are open to the public not as arenas for performance, but as sanctuaries for the orderly administration of justice,” he wrote. He added that while every Nigerian, including Sowore, was entitled to attend and observe proceedings, that right had to be exercised responsibly.
