A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Monday Ubani, has come out to clarify the legal implications of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) being absent from political party congresses and conventions under the Electoral Act 2026, firmly stating that such absence does not automatically invalidate party processes.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
Ubani made this position known in a detailed legal analysis he titled “When INEC Stays Away: The Legal Consequences of Non-Observation of Party Congresses and Conventions Under the Electoral Act 2026,” where he walked through the provisions of the law and how Nigerian courts have interpreted them.
At the heart of Ubani’s argument is the statutory obligation placed on political parties to notify INEC at least 21 days before holding any congress, convention, or primary election. He explained that this requirement is mandatory and non-negotiable under the Electoral Act 2026.
However, he was clear that once a political party fulfils this notice obligation, the burden shifts. The failure, refusal, or inability of INEC to attend after receiving proper notification does not, in any way, render the exercise null and void.
According to him, the law was never designed to give INEC the power to determine whether a party’s internal process is valid simply by choosing to stay away.
Citing Section 82 of the Electoral Act 2026, Ubani explained that while political parties are legally required to issue notice to INEC, the Commission’s role under that provision is strictly limited to attending and observing such activities.
He stressed that the sanction provided under the law applies only to situations where a party fails to notify INEC before conducting such exercises. It does not apply to situations where INEC declines to attend after receiving proper and timely notice from the party.
“The law is clear,” Ubani said. “The obligation is on the party to notify. Once that is done, what INEC decides to do with that notice is its own affair and cannot be used to punish the party or invalidate its process.”
Ubani further noted that Nigerian courts have consistently upheld this legal distinction over the years. He emphasized that the courts have always focused on whether the party followed due process in terms of statutory notice requirements, rather than whether INEC officials were physically present at the event.
To support this position, he referenced the landmark case of Akpabio v. Ekpoudom, where the court’s inquiry centered entirely on whether the proper legal steps were taken, not on the attendance or non-attendance of INEC representatives.
He also made a further point that even where INEC does attend a party’s congress or convention, its mere presence does not validate proceedings that were conducted in breach of the party’s constitution, electoral laws, or established guidelines. Validity, he argued, flows from compliance with the law, not from INEC’s physical attendance.
Ubani also used the opportunity to address recent controversies surrounding party conventions, particularly that of the **Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)**, noting that situations involving court orders operate under a completely different legal framework.
He explained that where a subsisting court order restrains a political exercise from taking place and a party proceeds regardless, any outcome from such an exercise risks being nullified. Crucially, he noted that this nullification would not be because INEC was absent, but because of the party’s disobedience to judicial authority.
This, he argued, is an entirely separate legal issue from the question of INEC’s absence and should not be confused or conflated with it.
Ubani warned strongly against any interpretation of the Electoral Act that would allow INEC’s absence to automatically void a party’s internal processes. He argued that such a reading of the law would carry serious constitutional risks.
Specifically, he said it would grant INEC undue and unchecked control over the internal affairs of political parties, which would amount to an overreach of the Commission’s mandate. He further argued that this kind of interpretation would:
– Undermine democratic principles and the autonomy of political parties
– Open the door for manipulation of candidate nomination processes
– Destabilize the internal workings of political parties
– Create uncertainty in election management across the country
“If INEC’s absence could void a congress, then INEC could effectively determine who gets nominated by simply refusing to show up,” Ubani warned. “That cannot be the intention of the law.”
Ubani maintained that the decisive legal test in any dispute over the validity of a party congress or convention remains the following:
1. Did the party comply with the statutory notice requirement of 21 days?
2. Did the party follow its own constitution and guidelines?
3. Was there a subsisting court order restraining the exercise at the time it was conducted?
Where all three conditions are satisfied in favour of the party that is, notice was given, guidelines were followed, and no court order was in place the absence of INEC cannot and should not be used to challenge the validity of the exercise.
Ubani concluded his analysis by commending what he described as the balance struck by the Electoral Act 2026 between regulatory oversight and the autonomy of political parties.
He stressed that the Act was designed to ensure that INEC plays a supervisory and observational role in party activities without becoming a tool for interference in or manipulation of internal party processes.
He called on political parties, lawyers, and election stakeholders to properly understand the law and resist any attempts to exploit INEC’s non-attendance as a weapon to destabilize legitimate party processes.
“Political parties must not be penalised for INEC’s non-attendance where all legal requirements have been duly met,” he concluded. “The law is on their side.”
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
______________________________________________________________________ “Bridging Theory And Courtroom Practice” — Hagler Sunny Okorie, Nathaniel Ngozi Ikeocha Unveil ‘Functional’ Tort Law Book For Nigerian Legal System
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
