Politics
Candidates’ Swap: INEC Advises Agrieved Aspirants To Go To Court
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has advised aspirants of different political parties who felt marginalised during the just-concluded primaries to approach any Federal High Court for redress.
INEC’s National Commissioner of Information and Voter Education, Festus Okoye, who appeared on a television programme on Monday morning, gave the advice while answering questions on the fate of Senate President, Ahmad Lawan of Yobe North Senatorial District and immediate past Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godswill Akpabio of Akwa North West Senatorial District in the 2023 elections.
Recall that while Senator Lawan was battling for the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential ticket, Bashir Sheriff Machina was declared the winner of the Yobe North Senatorial District primary election.
However, Machina has threatened to go to court to reclaim his mandate as the APC sent the name of Lawan to the electoral body for clearance.
Recall also that Akpabio had won the re-run initially won by Obongemem Ekperikpe Ekpo who reliable sources confided in The Tide source had withdrawn for Akpabio in line with the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022.
However, Okoye said he had not come across the names of candidates submitted by political parties, though viral report has it that the APC at national level had replaced the name of Machina with that of Lawan.
From INEC’s explanation, Lawan or any individual in his position is left at the mercy of the aspirants who have been legally and constitutionally nominated by their political parties.
Okoye said that the Commission monitored and has the reports of all the senatorial and House of Representatives primaries, adding that properly nominated candidates must write to INEC with a sworn affidavit, asking for a fresh primary, which would be conducted within 14 days before a replacement can be made.
He further advised Machina and others whose mandates have been taken from them to approach a well-constituted court of law to seek redress since INEC already has the reports from the primaries.
“I completely agree with you that someone who has not contested party’s primary should not be in a position to be nominated as party’s candidate,” Okoye said.
“But now the Independent National Electoral Commission is not in a position as at now to make a determination in relation to what you’re saying or to make a determination in relation to whose name was submitted by a political party.
“The Commission monitored the primaries of different political parties. Their senatorial and House of Representatives primaries and we have our reports. So if somebody emerged from the party primary and someone else’s name is submitted, it is the duty of that particular individual to utilise Section 285 of the Constitution, Section 84 and 29 of the Electoral Act to seek redress in a constituted court of law.
“Moreover, what the law provides is that at the end of this nomination process, if any of the candidates that have been properly and constitutional nominated withdraws in writing and sworn affidavit that the ‘political party that nominated me must and shall conduct fresh primaries within the period of 14 days and then make such replacement.’
“Then the person must do this through a letter submitted to the political party that nominated him with an affidavit indicating that he or she has voluntarily withdrawn. So that is the state of the law as at today,” he stated.
Section 84(14) of Electoral Act, 2022 says Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.
But, the caveat for candidates is enshrined in 84(13) of the Act which stipulates Where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue.
The state chairman of the party, Dr Babandi Gumel, disclosed this in a statement signed and made available to journalists on Saturday.
According to the statement, the Jigawa PDP received news of Alhaji Lamido’s suspension with “profound shock and disappointment”.
The statement added that the suspension, which was reportedly based on allegations that Alhaji Lamido attended meetings capable of undermining party unity, amounts to an affront to justice, internal democracy and the reconciliation efforts recently championed by the PDP leadership.
The party stressed that the exercise of legal and constitutional rights within the party should not be interpreted as an act of disunity. It recalled that Alhaji Lamido approached the court after he was allegedly denied the opportunity to purchase a nomination form to contest the position of National Chairman of the PDP.
The statement further noted that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ruled in Alhaji Lamido’s favour by restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention until his right to contest was determined.
The Jigawa PDP argued that the suspension appeared to be a punitive action against Alhaji Lamido for seeking judicial redress over an issue on which the court had already found merit.
The party also faulted the decision of the BoT for contradicting recent public statements by its chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, who had emphasised reconciliation within the party, admitted past mistakes and appealed to aggrieved members to return fully to the PDP fold.
However, it maintained that suspending a founding member who sought justice through legal means runs contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing publicly advocated by the party leadership.
The chairman said the suspension was premature and prejudicial, as the matter remains before the courts. He also described Alhaji Lamido as one of the few founding fathers of the PDP who has remained loyal to the party without defecting, warning that punishing such loyalty sends a negative signal to other committed members.
The party further argued that the action undermines party unity at a time when the PDP requires cohesion to effectively challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It also insisted that there is no provision in the PDP constitution that allows for the suspension of a “life member”.
The party called on the BoT to immediately and unconditionally withdraw the suspension of Alhaji Lamido.
It also demanded that the BoT publicly affirm the right of all party members to aspire to leadership positions in line with the party’s constitution and the laws of the country, without fear of victimisation.
It further urged the BoT to retrace its steps, align its actions with its reconciliation agenda, and tender an apology to Alhaji Lamido.
The Jigawa PDP reaffirmed its commitment to a united, democratic and law-abiding Party.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Comrade Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, CISLAC warned that if proven, such actions would amount to a serious breach of constitutional order, legislative integrity, and public trust.
The organisation noted that Nigeria’s law-making process is clearly defined by the Constitution, stressing that any alteration of a bill after parliamentary passage undermines democratic governance and the principle of separation of powers.
CISLAC further emphasised that taxation has direct implications for citizens, businesses, sub-national governments, and the overall economy. It stated that uncertainty or a lack of transparency in tax legislation could erode investor confidence and raise concerns about accountability and the possible abuse of executive power.
The organisation described the situation as particularly troubling given the rare inclusive, and thorough public consultation that shaped the law’s final provisions prior to its passage.
“This process brought together taxpayers, civil society groups, professional organisations, the private sector, labour unions, local governments, and technical experts, ensuring that diverse viewpoints were considered and carefully balanced.
“Any unilateral changes to these agreed-upon provisions, made outside the established legislative process and without renewed public engagement, not only breach public trust but also violate the fundamental tax principle of representation, which holds that citizens must have a meaningful voice in shaping the laws that govern how they are taxed. Such actions undermine democratic accountability, weaken the legitimacy of the tax system, and risk eroding public confidence”, it noted.
CISLAC expressed particular concern that uncertainty surrounding the authenticity of the tax law, coming at a time when a new tax regime is expected to take effect, could exacerbate the economic hardship already faced by many Nigerians.
It observed that citizens are contending with rising living costs, inflationary pressures, declining purchasing power, and reduced access to basic services, warning that implementing a disputed tax framework under such conditions, risks deepening inequality, discouraging compliance, and fuelling public resentment.
The organisation stressed that tax reforms must be anchored in clarity, legality, fairness, and social sensitivity, cautioning that any tax system introduced without full transparency, adequate public communication, and legislative certainty undermines voluntary compliance and weakens the social contract between the state and its citizens.
As part of its recommendations, CISLAC called on the Presidency to urgently publish the exact version of the tax law assented to, alongside the authenticated copy passed by the National Assembly, to allow for public and institutional verification.
It also urged the leadership of the National Assembly to promptly exercise its oversight powers to determine whether the assented law reflects the will of the legislature, including a review of the enrolled bill process.
The organisation maintained that any discrepancy discovered should be treated as unconstitutional and addressed through lawful means, such as the re-transmission of the correct bill or judicial interpretation where necessary. It further called for an independent review of the process by relevant institutions, including the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and, where required, the judiciary, to establish the facts and assign responsibility.
CISLAC noted that the controversy highlights the urgent need to strengthen safeguards at the legislative and executive interface. It recommended measures such as digital tracking of bills, public access to enrolled legislation, and more transparent assent procedures.
CISLAC emphasised that the issue is not about partisan politics but about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. It warned that allowing any arm of government to unilaterally alter laws passed by another sets a dangerous precedent and weakens constitutional democracy.
The organisation urged all parties involved to act with restraint, openness, and fidelity to the Constitution, noting that Nigerians deserve laws that reflect due process, the public interest, and the collective decisions of their elected representatives.
CISLAC added that it will continue to monitor developments and engage relevant stakeholders to promote accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria’s governance processes.
