0
0
In every constitutional democracy, the credibility of elections is anchored on the impartiality, consistency, and fidelity of electoral institutions to the rule of law. In Nigeria, that sacred responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Yet, recent developments involving the Commission’s handling of party affairs under the watch of Professor Joash Amupitan have raised troubling questions about double standards, selective compliance with court orders, and the erosion of institutional integrity.
The swift action taken by INEC to delist or alter the leadership structure of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) from its official portal, purportedly in compliance with a Court of Appeal order, would ordinarily be commendable. Respect for judicial pronouncements is the bedrock of constitutional governance. However, what is deeply troubling is the inconsistency that has followed. In a similar and arguably more direct judicial circumstance involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where a subsisting court order affirmed the suspension of Senator Samuel Anyanwu form the party, INEC conspicuously failed to act with the same urgency or fidelity.
Rather than reflect the court’s position, INEC retained Senator Anyanwu’s name on its official records, continued to recognize and engage him as the National Secretary of the PDP. This selective obedience to court orders is not just a procedural lapse, it is a fundamental breach of the principles of fairness, neutrality and administrative justice. It creates the unmistakable impression that the Commission applies different standards depending on the political party or the personalities involved. Such inconsistency is not a trivial administrative matter; it strikes at the very heart of electoral credibility. If INEC can choose which court orders to obey and which to ignore, then it inadvertently assumes powers above the judiciary, thereby undermining the doctrine of separation of powers. Worse still, it erodes public confidence in the electoral process, fuels suspicion of bias, and provides fertile ground for political manipulation.
The conduct attributed to Professor Amupitan raises a critical question of integrity. Integrity in public office is not merely about technical competence; it is about consistency, transparency and moral courage to uphold the law without fear or favour. When an official demonstrates a pattern of selective compliance, it calls into question not just his personal credibility but the institutional reliability of the body he represents.
It is imperative to emphasize that electoral management is not an arena for discretion divorced from legality. The law must be applied uniformly. The moment arbitrariness creeps into the system, democracy itself is imperiled. Nigerians cannot afford an electoral umpire whose decisions appear contingent on convenience rather than constitutional obligation. Therefore, the issue before the nation is not merely about ADC or PDP; it is about the sanctity of the electoral process. If INEC, under any leadership or influence, is perceived as partisan or inconsistent, the consequences will be far-reaching, ranging from voter apathy to post-election disputes and potential instability.
In conclusion, Professor Joash Amupitan’s handling of these matters, as alleged, presents a troubling contradiction that demands urgent clarification. The integrity of Nigeria’s elections cannot be built on selective justice. For INEC to retain public trust, it must demonstrate unwavering commitment to the rule of law, treating all political actors with equal regard. Anything short of this standard is not just a failure of administration, it is a betrayal of democracy itself.
Solomon Dalung, LLM, LLB, BL
Garkuwa Arewa, Dike Egwureogwui &Igbarman Otarok
Voice of the Silent Majority..
SB E-news.
About the Author
