Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has described the Court of Appeal judgment restoring the Independent National Electoral Commission’s 2027 election guidelines as a return to constitutional order, insisting that courts do not organise elections and political parties must comply with deadlines fixed by the electoral commission.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Speaking on Arise News Night on Thursday, Maduabuchi said the appellate court’s unanimous decision had clarified INEC’s constitutional authority to organise, undertake and supervise elections.
The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier Federal High Court judgment which nullified portions of INEC’s guidelines and timetable for the 2027 general elections.
The appellate court held that the Youth Party, which instituted the suit, lacked the legal standing to challenge the guidelines and that the trial court erred by invalidating INEC’s timetable.
According to Maduabuchi, the judgment sets the tone for the 2027 electoral process and restores the commission’s authority to prescribe deadlines and procedures for the nomination of candidates.
“When INEC did the proper thing and the Federal High Court intervened, all of us felt that we were moving into the bush. Happily for us, we have been restored to sanity,” he said.
“We have now gone back to sanity for us to realise that courts don’t run elections. INEC runs elections. We should allow INEC to run, organise and supervise elections.”
Explaining the appellate court’s finding on locus standi, Maduabuchi said a claimant must demonstrate a direct and sufficient interest in a dispute before being entitled to approach the court.
He said the Court of Appeal effectively asked the Youth Party to explain how INEC’s guidelines affected it differently from every other registered political party.
According to him, where a decision affects all political parties generally and a claimant cannot demonstrate a peculiar injury, that claimant lacks the standing to challenge it.
“Before you bring a case to court, you must have a place to stand and bring that case,” he explained.
“When the Court of Appeal says you do not have locus standi, it means this thing does not affect you more than it affects any other person. What is your interest? Why did you go to court?”
Maduabuchi questioned why a political party would challenge INEC merely for setting a deadline for the submission of candidates when the Constitution empowers the commission to conduct elections.
“What is the business of the Youth Party when INEC says, ‘Give me your nominations before such a time,’ and you rush to court? Are you saying INEC does not have the power to organise elections?” he asked.
He maintained that the Constitution empowered INEC to organise, undertake and supervise elections, making it difficult to challenge the commission merely for exercising those functions.
Maduabuchi said political parties that failed to upload their candidates before INEC’s July 14 deadline could no longer rely on the courts to re-enter the electoral process.
He maintained that their only practical option was to appeal directly to INEC for an extension.
“There is no legal pathway. As long as INEC has said it is July 14, those political parties should now go and begin to lobby INEC. Politics is a matter of lobbying,” he said.
According to him, the affected parties could ask INEC to consider the confusion caused by the earlier Federal High Court judgment and grant a short extension on compassionate or administrative grounds.
He noted that INEC had previously extended the deadline from July 11 to July 14 and could, at its discretion, provide another brief opportunity.
“They can lobby INEC to say, ‘Because of the judgment of the High Court, give us one week more.’ INEC can, on a humanitarian basis, say, ‘We will give you until the 20th,’” he said.
Maduabuchi warned that any fresh suit challenging the deadline would be unlikely to succeed and could attract substantial costs against both the litigant and counsel.
“If it is to go to court, anybody going to court now should be given about ₦10 million costs. The lawyer who goes to court should pay the fine from his pocket,” he said.
He argued that the meaning of the words “organise, undertake and supervise” was clear and conferred extensive responsibility on INEC.
“Organise means tell how it is to be done. Undertake means do it yourself. Supervise means ensure that it is properly done,” he said.
Despite insisting that INEC’s deadline must be obeyed, Maduabuchi warned that the unresolved leadership crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party could create a different and potentially more dangerous legal problem for the 2027 elections.
He said the exclusion of candidates submitted by a faction later declared by the courts to be the lawful leadership of the PDP could expose the entire election to nullification.
“This PDP issue might nullify the whole election we are going to do,” he warned.
Maduabuchi said that if a court ultimately declared the Turaki-led faction to be the legitimate PDP leadership, candidates submitted by that faction could argue before election tribunals that they were unlawfully excluded from participating.
“If eventually they say Turaki is the proper PDP and they go to the tribunals to challenge the elections, the Electoral Act says INEC has no power to reject any candidate,” he said.
“If they have refused to upload PDP candidates or candidates of a political party that is lawful and legally recognised, they will go to the tribunals and say they were excluded unlawfully.”
He warned that, in a presidential election, an unlawfully excluded candidate could challenge the outcome and potentially cause the declared winner to lose the election.
“If it is presidential, the presidential candidate will say, ‘I was unlawfully excluded,’ and whoever won that election will lose it,” he said.
Maduabuchi urged INEC and the political parties to carefully consider the legal consequences of the PDP dispute rather than treating it as an ordinary internal party crisis.
“We have to be careful about the way we follow our laws. These things have effects that have terrible foreboding for the country,” he said.
Maduabuchi argued that INEC should enjoy broad discretion in election administration because its powers flow directly from the Constitution rather than ordinary legislation.
He maintained that no provision of the Electoral Act could validly interfere with powers expressly conferred on the commission by the Constitution.
According to him, once INEC issues guidelines pursuant to its constitutional mandate, the guidelines assume the character of subsidiary legislation and must be obeyed.
“Once INEC says it, it becomes subsidiary legislation because it is made pursuant to the Constitution,” he said.
“You cannot bring another legislation to nibble at it. Once INEC says it, the best thing for you is to comply with it. Otherwise, you will not be part of the election.”
He said the National Assembly could only limit INEC’s authority by amending the Constitution and removing or modifying the relevant powers.
“As long as it remains in the Constitution, there is nothing anybody can do about it,” he said.
Maduabuchi added that the Court of Appeal had not introduced a new principle but merely recognised the supremacy of the Constitution and applied its provisions to INEC’s electoral powers.
“The Court of Appeal did not do anything new or spectacular. It simply did its job of interpreting the law as it is,” he said.
On the political implications of the judgment, Maduabuchi said it had altered the calculations of parties and candidates who expected the Federal High Court decision to be upheld.
He said parties that failed to submit their candidates within the prescribed period could no longer assume that the courts would reopen the nomination portal for them.
“Those who have not forwarded or submitted their candidates know that the door has been firmly shut,” he said.
“If you have been hoping that the Court of Appeal would say the judge was right, the Court of Appeal has shut the door firmly.”
He added: “If you have not done so, look for somewhere, sit by the corner and begin to lick your wounds because it is over. That is the thing about law. Law is slow, but it is definite.”
Maduabuchi said the judgment strengthened INEC institutionally and sent a warning to political parties that the commission’s regulations and timelines must be taken seriously.
Asked whether the appellate judgment amounted to a rebuke of the Federal High Court and its interpretation of the Electoral Act, Maduabuchi declined to make personal comments about the trial judge.
He said that as a practising litigation lawyer, he would not publicly criticise judges or go beyond what was contained in the Court of Appeal judgment.
“What the Court of Appeal has said is clear. It is there in the judgment for anybody to read and understand,” he said.
“It is not for me to begin to interpret it and say this is what it means or its effect. I would not go that far so nobody will tell me tomorrow in court that I am challenging judges or talking down on judges.”
He nevertheless expressed the view that the Court of Appeal could have gone beyond the issue of locus standi to consider whether aspects of the Electoral Act improperly restricted INEC’s constitutional powers.
He acknowledged, however, that the court could not determine issues that had not been properly placed before it.
“Courts are not Father Christmas. If you do not bring something before them, they will not pronounce on it,” he said.
Maduabuchi said the decision could help restore consistency in Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence and renew public confidence in the judiciary.
He argued that the relevant constitutional provisions were clear and left little room for conflicting interpretations.
“There is no room to manoeuvre. It is a clear thing. If this is what we will have going forward, there will be hope,” he said.
According to him, Nigerians who were beginning to lose faith in the judiciary should draw reassurance from the Court of Appeal’s decision.
He also suggested that any attempt to improperly influence the appellate court had failed, although he provided no evidence of any such attempt.
“Anybody who tried to influence them failed. We expect that, going forward, they should stick to this so that clarity begets clarity,” he said.
Maduabuchi concluded by advising political parties to strengthen their legal departments and retain lawyers capable of giving objective advice rather than telling party leaders what they want to hear.
He warned against using lawyers whose political interests interfere with their professional judgment.
“Do not use lawyers who are politicians. There are lawyers who will tell you something sweet to your ears. If you have such lawyers in your legal department, you will run into obstacles and pitfalls like this,” he said.
He said political parties needed lawyers who could tell their leaders when they were wrong and advise them to comply with the law even while pursuing a legal challenge.
“You must have lawyers who do not believe in knowing judges but believe in knowing the law,” he said.
“There are lawyers who know the judges more than they know the law.”
Maduabuchi said a competent legal adviser would have advised every political party to meet INEC’s deadline regardless of its disagreement with the guidelines and await the outcome of any court proceedings afterward.
“If I were the legal adviser of any political party, whether right or wrong, I would tell them to comply while we wait for what the courts will say,” he concluded.
As an added bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE ebook titled: “How to use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion.”
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
LAWBREED — Equipping You For Greater Success!
_______________________________________________________________________
