The recent ruling of the Nigerian Supreme Court represents a significant blow to the idea of free and fair elections in the country. It threatens the very foundation of the democratic project by effectively rendering INEC’s regulations and guidelines non-binding unless they explicitly contradict the Electoral Act.
INEC’s Role and Legal Mandate
The law empowers the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), like any regulatory agency, to regulate the conduct of elections through regulations and guidelines. These are meant to be the ground rules—much like FIFA sets the rules for football before the World Cup.
To illustrate: imagine if FIFA had canceled Kanu Nwankwo’s Golden Goal against Brazil after extra time, claiming the authority to determine how football is played. That would be absurd—but that is essentially what the Supreme Court allowed INEC to do.
What INEC’s Regulations Required
INEC’s regulations clearly stated that:
Votes must be transmitted to the IREV and INEC collation portal.
The transmitted results should be used to cross-check manually collated results.
In the event of a conflict, transmitted results should be recorded.
Where there are no transmitted results, INEC should use duplicate copies of polling unit results given to party agents and police.
However, in practice:
INEC blocked the transmission of results to the IREV.
INEC failed to cross-check manually collated results against duplicate copies from party agents and the police.
This deliberate omission undermined transparency and facilitated election rigging.
Election Rigging in Nigeria
Election manipulation in Nigeria is often carefully orchestrated to mask fraud:
Strongholds of opposition are protected to avoid obvious rigging.
Opponent votes in other areas are neutralized strategically, guided by BVAS accreditation and voter registration numbers.
This “managed fraud” relies heavily on INEC’s noncompliance with its own regulations.
The Supreme Court’s Dangerous Precedent
In Atiku v INEC, the Supreme Court ruled:
“The failure to obey the directive or instruction in the INEC Regulations and Guidelines cannot be relied upon as a ground for an election petition to invalidate an election if the failure is not contrary to any provision of the Electoral Act. … The failure to follow the Regulations and Guidelines… cannot in itself render the election void.”
In essence, the Court legalized ‘anyhowness’ in election conduct, stating that INEC can ignore its published rules without consequence, as long as no specific provision of the Electoral Act is violated.
Implications
This decision weakens accountability, allowing INEC to bypass its own procedures.
It undermines trust in the electoral process, making free and fair elections increasingly difficult.
It effectively institutionalizes lawlessness, making the democratic project in Nigeria vulnerable to manipulation.
Published by Chuks Nwachuku
