The family of Gospel Kinanee, who went missing as a 14-year-old boy in 2007, has finally been reunited with him after he spent 18 years in the Port Harcourt Correctional Centre without any formal charge or record of arrest.

According to his elder brother, Gospel left home in the afternoon to play with friends in 2007 but never returned. After an exhaustive search across their community, police stations, hospitals, and other locations yielded no results, the family gave up hope. The trauma of his disappearance led to the death of both parents the same year.

In early 2025, the family was contacted by lawyers led by Cyrus Onu, who had discovered Gospel during a prison welfare and rehabilitation exercise. At the time of his discovery, Gospel, now 32, was mentally unstable, could not recognise his family members, and had no recollection of how he ended up in prison.

He was released after the Chief Judge of Rivers State granted him clemency. Medical examinations revealed he was physically stable but suffers from severe mental health issues believed to have developed during his long incarceration.

The family has expressed shock that correctional authorities had no case file or explanation for his imprisonment, describing it as a case of someone being “dumped” in prison with no record.

The family has now filed a lawsuit against the Rivers State Government and correctional authorities, demanding justice and compensation for the gross violation of Gospel’s rights. They are scheduled to appear in court on Monday.

The elder brother revealed they have received threats from prison officials warning them against speaking to the media and pursuing legal action. Despite this, the family says they are committed to seeking accountability so that Gospel can receive proper rehabilitation and begin rebuilding his life.

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.