A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Monday Ubani, has clarified that the non-attendance of the (INEC) at political party congresses, conventions, or primary elections does not automatically invalidate such exercises under the Electoral Act 2026.
Ubani, a constitutional and policy analyst, made this known in a detailed legal exposition titled “When INEC Stays Away: The Legal Consequences of Non-Observation of Party Congresses and Conventions Under the Electoral Act 2026.”
According to him, as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, internal party democracy remains a critical pillar of representative governance, emphasizing that political parties are the constitutionally recognized platforms through which candidates emerge.
He explained that Section 82 of the Electoral Act 2026 mandates political parties to give INEC at least 21 days’ notice before conducting congresses, conventions, or primaries. While the law compels parties to notify the electoral body, it also empowers INEC to attend and observe such activities.
Ubani, however, noted that the legal consequences of non-compliance fall squarely on political parties that fail to issue the required notice, not on INEC for failing to attend.
“The law is clear. Failure to notify INEC renders the exercise invalid, but INEC’s absence, where proper notice has been given, does not in itself invalidate the process,” he stated.
Citing judicial precedents, including the case of Akpabio v. Ekpoudom, Ubani explained that Nigerian courts have consistently distinguished between failure by a party to notify INEC and INEC’s refusal or inability to attend after receiving valid notice.
He stressed that only the former attracts legal sanctions capable of nullifying a political exercise.
The senior lawyer further argued that even where INEC is present, such attendance does not validate a flawed process conducted in breach of party constitutions or electoral guidelines.
He warned that allowing INEC’s absence to invalidate party processes would effectively grant the electoral body undue influence over internal party affairs.
“INEC is a regulator and observer, not the creator of party mandates,” Ubani emphasized, adding that granting the commission such powers could undermine democratic principles and encourage manipulation.
He, however, distinguished situations where court orders are involved, referencing controversies surrounding a reported convention of the (PDP) in Oyo State.
According to him, where a subsisting court order restrains a political activity, any action taken in defiance of such an order is liable to be nullified—not because INEC was absent, but due to violation of the rule of law.
Ubani outlined conditions under which party congresses or conventions may be legally challenged, including failure to notify INEC, defective or late notice, violation of party guidelines, exclusion of delegates, or disobedience to court orders.
He concluded that the validity of party processes depends primarily on compliance with statutory provisions and internal rules, not merely on INEC’s physical presence.
“As long as the party fulfills its legal obligation by issuing proper notice and conducts its processes in line with the law, INEC’s absence alone cannot invalidate the outcome,” he said.
Ubani maintained that this interpretation preserves the balance between electoral regulation and party autonomy, which is essential for Nigeria’s democratic stability.
