INEC Guidelines Derive Authority from Constitution, May Override Conflicting Electoral Act Provisions – Maduabuchi
By Ozor Rebecca Mmesoma
E-ISSN:2354-4481
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has argued that guidelines issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) derive their authority directly from the Constitution and should prevail over any conflicting provisions of the Electoral Act in the administration of elections in Nigeria.
Maduabuchi asserted during an interview on ARISE News on Monday while reacting to a recent Federal High Court judgment concerning INEC’s electoral timetable for the 2027 general elections.
According to the senior lawyer, the constitutional foundation of INEC places the commission in a unique position to formulate and enforce regulations necessary for the effective conduct of elections. He emphasized that the commission was established by the 1999 Constitution (as amended), not by the Electoral Act.
Citing Section 153 of the Constitution, Maduabuchi noted that INEC’s existence and authority flow directly from the supreme law of the land. He argued that this constitutional status empowers the commission to independently regulate electoral processes within the scope of its mandate.
He further explained that the Constitution expressly assigns INEC the responsibility to organise, undertake, and supervise elections across the country. In his view, these constitutional duties grant the commission broad authority to determine procedures and timelines required for credible electoral administration.
Maduabuchi stated that INEC possesses the exclusive power to issue directives relating to candidate submissions, political party primaries, and other electoral activities necessary for the smooth conduct of elections. He maintained that such powers are integral to the commission’s constitutional responsibilities.
Breaking down the commission’s mandate, the legal practitioner said the functions of organising, undertaking, and supervising elections inherently include the authority to establish operational guidelines and regulations for electoral stakeholders.
He contended that any provision of the Electoral Act that seeks to limit or undermine powers expressly granted to INEC by the Constitution would be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore liable to be invalidated.
According to him, because INEC guidelines are issued pursuant to constitutional authority, they should be regarded as binding instruments within Nigeria’s electoral framework, particularly in matters relating to the conduct and management of elections.
Maduabuchi concluded that while the Electoral Act provides the statutory framework for electoral processes, INEC retains constitutional discretion to issue guidelines that govern the practical implementation of elections, provided such guidelines remain within the bounds of the Constitution.
