SUPREME COURT DECISION AFFIRMING POWER OF INEC TO DECLARE ELECTION INCONCLUSIVE

The most recent authority on this point is the case of FALAKE V. INEC (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1543)16 where it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the reliance by INEC on its manual for election was unconstitutional because the constitution have already covered the field on how a Governor should be declared elected, as provided under S. 179 (2) (a) & (b) Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that.… the relevance of INEC’s manual for electoral Officers in the proper conduct of election was acknowledged by this Court in CPC v. INEC (2011) LPELR 8257 (SC), per Adekeye JSC Thus;

“By Force of law, the Independent National Electoral Commission has the duty of conducting elections. Besides the constitutional provision, it is guided by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Election Guidelines and Manual issued for its officials in accordance with the Act. These documents embody all steps to be complied with for the conduct of a free, fair and hitch free election’.

The Supreme Court went further to posit that resort to INEC’s manual for the conduct of election is not in conflict with the provisions of the constitution as contained in S. 179 (1) and (2) of CFRN 1999 (as amended). This position of the law has also been applied in the case of Ihuoma v. Azubuike & Ors. (2015) LPELR 25978 where the Court of Appeal held that …the place of the INEC’s guidelines, Regulations and Manual for the conduct of election cannot be wished away by any logical argument no matter how brilliant. On this light, the authority in Prof. Osunbor v. Oshiomhole (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1065) 32 being relied on by the revered learned silk Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN which is to the effect that when votes are cancelled, they are not to be reckoned with in determining the outcome of an election, is with respect not applicable in this case as there were wards and polling units that are yet to vote and the votes from such wards are capable of tilting the wheel of victory either way.

Juxtaposing the position of the law in Faleke’s case, which is the most recent authority on the power of INEC to DECLARE AN ELECTION INCONCLUSIVE, it is clear that INEC did not act ultra vires because the margin between the two leading contenders was less than the number of cancelled votes.

Therefore, this Court (Supreme Court) uphold the right of lNEC to ‘DECLARE ELECTION INCONCLUSIVE’ relying on constitutional provisions, the provisions of Electoral Act, guidelines of lNEC inclusive of its manual.