INEC, Rule of Law and Electoral Stability
By Bello Charles Kolawole (Ph.D)
The recent criticism of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over its decision to appeal the judgment of the Federal High Court and seek a Stay of Execution unfortunately reflects a narrow understanding of constitutional democracy, electoral administration, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Contrary to the narrative being promoted in some quarters, INEC’s actions demonstrate institutional responsibility, respect for due process, and commitment to preserving the integrity and stability of Nigeria’s electoral system.
- Advertisement -
In every constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, parties dissatisfied with a judgment possess an unquestionable legal right to appeal. INEC, as a constitutional institution charged with the enormous responsibility of conducting credible, orderly, and nationally coordinated elections, cannot simply fold its arms where it believes a judgment may create uncertainty within the electoral framework.
Approaching the appellate court for clarification and preservative relief is not an act of partisanship. It is a lawful and responsible exercise of constitutional rights.
The argument that INEC should not seek a Stay of Execution merely because the judgment is declaratory in nature ignores the practical realities of electoral administration. Elections are not abstract legal theories. They involve sensitive timelines, candidate management, logistics, ballot preparation, security coordination, and national stability.
The management of INEC clearly understands that electoral processes require certainty, consistency, and institutional coordination. Allowing sudden disruptions to established timelines without appellate review could create avoidable confusion capable of undermining public confidence in the electoral process.
This is precisely why preservative remedies exist within the judicial system.
More importantly, rights within a democracy are never absolute. Political actors may have statutory rights regarding participation and substitution processes, but those rights cannot be exercised in ways that jeopardize the constitutional obligation of INEC to deliver organized, credible, and peaceful elections.
As the popular legal principle states, your right to swing your hand ends where another person’s nose begins.
In this context, political interests must be balanced against the broader national interest of electoral order and democratic stability.
It is therefore unfair and politically misleading to portray INEC’s management team as biased simply because they chose to pursue lawful appellate remedies. In fact, their conduct demonstrates maturity, institutional discipline, and respect for judicial hierarchy. Rather than resorting to administrative self-help, the Commission submitted itself to the judicial process as required under the Constitution.
That is the true meaning of rule of law.
The leadership of INEC deserves commendation for recognizing that electoral stability is not merely an administrative concern but a constitutional necessity tied directly to national peace, democratic legitimacy, and public confidence in governance.
Democracy can only thrive where institutions are allowed to lawfully defend their constitutional responsibilities without being unfairly politicized for exercising rights guaranteed by law.
In the final analysis, INEC’s decision to appeal and seek interim judicial protection should not be viewed through the lens of politics, but through the higher principles of constitutional governance, institutional responsibility, and the preservation of electoral stability in Nigeria.
*Bello Charles Kolawole (Ph.D)*
Political Scientist and Expert on Governance/ Electoral System
(DEMOCRACY NEWSLINE NEWSPAPER, MAY 19TH 2026)
