MADUABUCHI CHALLENGES INEC’S AUTHORITY TO DISQUALIFY CANDIDATES, CITES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS

By NaijaParrot October 12, 2026 

 LAGOS, NIGERIA —

 Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Oba Maduabuchi, has questioned the authority of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to disqualify candidates from contesting elections, arguing that the commission must operate strictly within the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Electoral Act. Maduabuchi maintained that neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Act gives INEC unrestricted authority to determine who can contest an election. In his statement, the senior lawyer described the commission’s alleged position as ill-advised and stressed that the power to determine a candidate’s eligibility must be exercised in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS UNDER SCRUTINY Maduabuchi argued that understanding INEC’s responsibilities requires a careful examination of the Constitution and the Electoral Act. According to him, the Constitution empowers INEC to organise, undertake and supervise elections, but that mandate should not automatically be interpreted as giving the commission the power to disqualify candidates. He maintained that the commission cannot assume powers that have not been expressly granted to it by law. His position raises a broader legal question about the distinction between INEC’s responsibility to administer elections and the authority to make final determinations on disputes concerning candidates’ eligibility.

 

 The debate has a significant legal background. In the case of Action Congress v. Independent National Electoral Commission, which concerned the 2007 general elections, the Supreme Court addressed whether INEC had the authority to disqualify a candidate under the applicable constitutional and electoral provisions. The decision is frequently cited in discussions about the limits of the commission’s powers. However, the legal position in any current dispute must be assessed against the applicable constitutional provisions, electoral legislation and subsequent court decisions. The Electoral Act also sets out rules governing political parties’ nomination of candidates and INEC’s role in monitoring primaries. The scope of those responsibilities must be distinguished from the judicial determination of contested questions of eligibility. 

 The extent of INEC’s authority is important to political parties, aspirants and voters, particularly as preparations for future elections continue. A clear distinction between the commission’s administrative responsibilities and the powers of the courts can help establish how disputes over nomination and qualification should be handled. While INEC is constitutionally responsible for organising and supervising elections, the precise legal process for challenging a candidate’s eligibility depends on the circumstances and the applicable law. As of the time of publication, the statement provided does not identify a specific candidate or electoral dispute to which Maduabuchi’s comments refer.

Maduabuchi’s position is that INEC must not exceed the authority conferred on it by law when dealing with candidates. The wider issue remains one of constitutional interpretation and the proper division of responsibilities between the electoral commission and the judiciary.

 

 NaijaParrot will continue to monitor developments and report verified updates on the legal and electoral issues involved. 

 NaijaParrot — Hear It First! Hear It True!