INEC should rescind the deregistration order and ignore the unproductive political parties. They should be allowed to exist. INEC should rather take measures to ensure that public funds are not used to sustain their existence and that their existence does not hamper the political process. The issues should not be about deregistration which I believe is a violation of the right to freedom of association. The issues should be, should INEC give money to political parties for elections? If yes, which political parties should qualify for the subventions? Should every political party be on the Ballot paper? How can we reduce the confusion of having lengthy party names and logos on the Ballot Paper when only a few are known to the voter? These are the real issues”.
Are We at a Judicial Crossroads with the Decisions of Justices Umar and Omotosho on INEC’s Electoral Guidelines?
The two decisions of the Federal High Court delivered respectively by Justice Mohammed G. Umar and Justice James Kolawole Omotosho are already generating intense constitutional and electoral discourse within legal circles. Both judgments dealt with the legality of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s administrative timetable and guidelines issued for the 2027 general elections vis-à-vis the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. Although both courts addressed substantially similar legal questions, they arrived at partially convergent and partially divergent conclusions. This has now sparked debate among senior members of the Bar on whether Justice Omotosho ought to be reprimanded for allegedly delivering a judgment inconsistent with that of Justice Umar. This article examines the two judgments, identifies their points of agreement and disagreement, and evaluates whether the controversy over judicial contradiction is legally sustainable or merely academic se...
Comments
Post a Comment
Drop your comment here.