A Judgment delivered by Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, nullifying the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s deadline requiring political parties to submit their membership registers by May 10, 2026, has introduced a major constitutional and electoral debate in Nigeria’s democratic process.

The court held that INEC could not lawfully abridge the statutory period provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which stipulates that political parties shall submit the particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days before the election.

Consequently, the court ruled that political parties and intending defectors have until September 2026 to regularize party membership and submit relevant registers.

Truth be told, this decision appears legally authoritative when examined against the supremacy of statutory provisions over administrative guidelines.
Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 is explicit and mandatory. Once the National Assembly has fixed a timeline for submission of candidates’ particulars, INEC, being a statutory creation, cannot shorten that period through regulations or administrative directives.

Administrative guidelines must derive validity from the parent statute and cannot contradict or override it.
This principle has long been settled in Nigerian jurisprudence: where there is a conflict between a statute and subsidiary legislation or administrative action, the statute prevails. INEC’s timetable and guidelines are therefore subordinate instruments which cannot curtail rights granted by the Electoral Act.

Justice Umar’s reasoning therefore aligns with established constitutional doctrine that delegated powers cannot exceed the enabling law.

INEC’s intention may not necessarily have been unlawful in purpose, though the court appears to have found it repulsive in practice.

Permit me to make the following assumptions for the Commission in this matter. INEC may have been motivated to create electoral stability and administrative convenience by that guideline. Again
INEC may probably have sought to stabilize party memberships early enough to prevent last-minute defections, confusion in primaries, and manipulation of candidate lists. Additionally, INEC may have intended to sanitize the process and reduce the abuse associated with politicians maintaining parallel loyalties across parties. And finally,
early submission of membership registers would have allowed INEC sufficient time to verify party memberships and prepare for primaries.

While these intentions from my assumption appear reasonable from an administrative standpoint, administrative convenience cannot override statutory rights created by legislation.

INEC no doubt possesses powers under the Constitution and Electoral Act to issue regulations, guidelines, and timetables for elections. However, such powers are limited by the doctrine of ultra vires. Once INEC issues a guideline inconsistent with the Electoral Act, that guideline becomes null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that subsidiary legislation cannot amend, vary, or diminish the provisions of a principal statute.
Therefore, if Section 29 grants political parties until 120 days before election to submit candidates’ particulars, INEC cannot indirectly defeat that provision by creating an earlier mandatory membership deadline that effectively forecloses participation.

The implications of this judgment in the political horizon are far-reaching.
The judgment effectively reopens the political transfer window. Politicians dissatisfied with outcomes in their present parties now have additional time to defect and secure nominations elsewhere.
This could trigger unprecedented political realignments before the 2027 elections. Secondly this decision significantly limits INEC’s ability to impose administrative deadlines outside the Electoral Act. It reinforces judicial scrutiny over electoral guidelines and may compel INEC to strictly align future regulations with statutory provisions.

Political parties may now experience prolonged uncertainty in membership structures, candidate negotiations, and internal democracy processes.

Given the national importance of this judgment, the matter may proceed to the Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court for definitive interpretation of the scope of INEC’s regulatory authority under the Electoral Act.

On the positive side, the judgment reinforces a critical democratic principle: statutory bodies cannot govern beyond the powers expressly granted by law.

In conclusion, Justice Umar’s judgment appears substantially consistent with the doctrine of legality and the supremacy of statutory provisions over administrative regulations. While INEC’s intentions may have been driven by legitimate concerns over electoral orderliness and political discipline, the Commission cannot lawfully curtail timelines expressly guaranteed under the Electoral Act through administrative guidelines.
The ruling is therefore a strong judicial reminder that electoral management bodies, no matter how powerful, must operate strictly within the boundaries established by the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, this decision may become one of the most consequential electoral rulings shaping party defections, candidate nominations, and the balance of power between INEC and the judiciary.

M.O . Ubani SAN
Legal Practitioner/Policy Analyst based in Abuja.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on Monday, May 18, 2026, secured a final forfeiture order of a Hawker private Jet 125 before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja over its link to fraud, corruption and money laundering regarding the Maiduguri Emergency Power Project, MEPP.

The aircraft, with model number 800XP, serial number 258553 and registration number 5N-AMK, was forfeited following an application by the EFCC.

Ruling on the application, Justice Nwite held that no sufficient cause was shown by Valiente Jet Limited, a company owned by Abdulsalam Mustapha Kachallah, an interested party, why the aircraft should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government.

“The interested party has not demonstrated with evidence the lawful origin of the funds used to purchase the aircraft,” the judge held, stressing that the disguised manner through which the aircraft was acquired using the name of a Bureau De Change operator who denied knowledge of the nature of the transaction further lent credence to the unlawfulness of the entire transaction.

The court had earlier granted an interim forfeiture order on November 13, 2025 and directed the Commission to publish the order in a national newspaper for interested parties to show cause why the aircraft should not be permanently forfeited.

Following the publication, a company, Valiente Limited whose owner is Alhaji Abdulsalam Mustapha Kachallah filed affidavits to show cause. The application for final forfeiture was supported by an affidavit deposed to by Aminu Abdullahi, an investigator with the EFCC.

According to the investigator, the Commission received intelligence bordering on conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence and money laundering involving Kachallah.

Investigation revealed that sometime in 2021, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, awarded contracts under the Maiduguri Emergency Power Project valued at $114,148,155 (One Hundred and Fourteen Million, One Hundred Forty Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty Five Dollars) and ₦23,172,969,904, (Twenty Three Billion, One Hundred and Seventy Two Million, Nine Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand. Nine Hundred and Four Naira) .

Kachallah, who was then Chairman of the Borno State Rural Electrification Board and a member of the project’s steering committee, used his position and relationship with officials of the NNPCL to engage in illicit dealings connected to the project.

Investigation showed that Kachallah entered into unlawful agreements with China Machinery Engineering Company, CMEC, through companies in which he had substantial interest, and sold privileged bidding information relating to the project in exchange for financial inducements.

The investigation further showed that CMEC was subsequently awarded three contracts under the project valued at $52,120,172 (Fifty Two Million One Hundred and Twenty Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Two Dollars) and ₦20,213,956,953 (Twenty Billion, Two Hundred and Thirteen Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Three Naira).

Part of the contract funds was routed through Afuwa Integrated Services Limited, a Bureau De Change operator, under the false claim that the company was subcontracted by CMEC.

CMEC transferred the sum of $2,070,000 (Two Million, Seventy Thousand Dollars) into the Stanbic IBTC Bank account of Afuwa Integrated Services Limited on Kachallah’s instruction.

Investigation further revealed that forged invoices were prepared in the name of Afuwa Integrated Services Limited to falsely portray that legitimate services had been rendered to CMEC.

The funds were thereafter transferred to a Brazilian account for the purchase of the aircraft from a Brazilian company.

The persistent attempt by Mr. Julius Abure to parade himself as the National Chairman of the Labour Party and to recently announce some candidates in his purported primary elections under the platform of the Labour Party has become not only legally indefensible but a direct assault on the rule of law and the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic process.

The issue of the leadership of the Labour Party has already been conclusively determined by the courts, culminating in the decision of the Supreme Court, which made it abundantly clear that the tenure of Julius Abure and his executive had since expired. The apex court recognized the caretaker leadership that emerged to stabilize the party and restore order. In particular, the leadership under Senator Nenadi Usman was acknowledged as the legitimate authority steering the affairs of the party pending a proper convention.

Ordinarily, in a country governed by law, that should have ended the matter.
However, rather than submit to the finality of judicial pronouncements as demanded by the Constitution and democratic norms, Mr. Abure chose the dangerous route of forum shopping and judicial adventurism. He returned to the trial court in a desperate bid to revive a dead mandate. The courts, both at the trial level and at the Court of Appeal, reportedly made it clear to him that the matter had been settled and that peace should be allowed to reign within the party.

Yet, in complete disregard of these judicial pronouncements, Mr. Abure has continued to act as though he remains the authentic leader of the Labour Party. Most astonishing is his purported organization of parallel primaries and the presentation of candidates for elections under the party’s platform, despite the fact that the Labour Party has since held a valid national convention where Senator Nenadi Usman was affirmed as the substantive National Chairman alongside other duly elected executives.
This conduct is not merely provocative; it is profoundly dangerous to constitutional democracy.

A political party is not a lawless association where individuals can operate according to personal whims. It is an institution regulated by the Constitution, the Electoral Act, the party’s constitution, and the decisions of competent courts. Once the courts have spoken with finality, every person, no matter how highly placed, is bound to obey.

The attempt to run a parallel structure after lawful leadership has emerged amounts to political mischief of the highest order. It creates confusion among party members, deceives unsuspecting aspirants and supporters, and undermines the credibility of the electoral system. Worse still, it exposes innocent candidates to avoidable legal disasters, as candidates presented by unauthorized persons or unlawful structures may ultimately find their nominations invalidated by the courts.

One must ask: what exactly is the objective of this persistent defiance by Mr. Abure? No democracy can thrive where individuals place themselves above the law. Nigeria cannot afford to become a laughing stock before the international community because of the reckless conduct of politicians who refuse to accept lawful decisions. The sanctity of judicial pronouncements must be respected if democracy is to survive.

It is even more troubling that a legal practitioner would be associated with conduct that appears to undermine settled judicial decisions. Lawyers are ministers in the temple of justice and are expected to uphold the rule of law, not ridicule it through acts capable of bringing the legal profession into disrepute. The Rules of Professional Conduct impose a duty on lawyers to maintain respect for the courts and the administration of justice. Persistent disregard for binding decisions raises serious ethical and disciplinary concerns that the appropriate professional bodies may eventually need to examine.

The security agencies must not fold their arms while this avoidable confusion festers. Where an individual continues to impersonate authority, create parallel political structures, and generate tension capable of disrupting public peace and electoral order, the relevant authorities have a duty to intervene decisively within the bounds of the law. Enough is enough.

Nigeria must move away from the era where political actors behave as though the law is optional. Democracy survives on discipline, order, and respect for institutions. Once the courts have spoken, every patriotic citizen ought to bow to the supremacy of the law.

Mr. Abure must therefore desist from further acts capable of misleading the public, deceiving unsuspecting aspirants, and destabilizing the Labour Party. Any continued attempt to unlawfully parade himself as Chairman of the party or present candidates under an illegal structure may amount not only to political fraud on innocent party members and supporters, but also a deliberate misrepresentation capable of attracting serious legal consequences.

Members of the public, aspirants, and political stakeholders are therefore strongly advised to exercise caution and avoid dealing with unauthorized persons or factions whose actions are clearly contrary to established judicial pronouncements and the lawful leadership of the party.
The time has come for all genuine stakeholders to rally around lawful authority, obey court decisions, and allow peace, order, and internal democracy to flourish within the party and the nation at large.

M.O. Ubani, SAN
Legal Practitioner and Public Affairs Commentator.