Legal practitioners have offered differing perspectives on whether recent judicial pronouncements affecting political parties undermine the independence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), with many insisting that judicial oversight remains a constitutional safeguard rather than an encroachment on the electoral body’s powers.

A legal practitioner and Coordinator of Pelex Centre for Civic Education Initiative, Courage Nsirimovu, argued that court pronouncements do not, by themselves, impair INEC’s independence. According to him, the judiciary has a constitutional responsibility to adjudicate disputes brought before it, including matters concerning the electoral commission.

He, however, cautioned that judicial interference would arise where courts make pronouncements on issues not presented before them or issue decisions that stray into INEC’s constitutional decision-making powers. He also noted that judgments considered manifestly perverse on matters relating to party structures or electoral administration could amount to undue interference with the commission’s independence.

On the court’s directive ordering the deregistration of some political parties, Nsirimovu said the ruling could be viewed both as an indictment and a vindication of INEC. He explained that the Constitution clearly outlines the circumstances under which political parties may be deregistered, particularly where they fail to meet stipulated electoral performance thresholds.

He stressed that the constitutional provisions should be interpreted holistically. A political party that fails to secure the required presidential votes may still retain its registration if it satisfies the constitutional requirements in governorship or legislative elections. Consequently, if INEC failed to properly apply these constitutional provisions before deciding against deregistration, such omission would reflect a lapse in its constitutional responsibilities.

At the same time, Nsirimovu argued that democratic principles require a careful balance between strict legal compliance and the need to preserve political plurality.

 According to him, excessive deregistration of parties could weaken democratic competition, noting that democracy thrives on the existence of multiple political platforms.

On the impact of ongoing litigations on election planning, he maintained that court actions challenging party structures and eligibility remain lawful until legislation prescribes timelines restricting such cases. Although such litigations may complicate election planning, he argued they cannot be regarded as unlawful interference with INEC’s preparations.

Similarly, legal practitioner and policy analyst, Living Jamala maintained that the judgment does not compromise INEC’s independence. He explained that under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary serves as a constitutional watchdog over the actions of public institutions, including INEC, which itself is a creation of the Constitution and remains subject to judicial review.

Jamala, however, agreed that the court’s intervention subtly exposed shortcomings in INEC’s regulatory oversight. While the Constitution empowers the commission to deregister political parties that fail to satisfy legal requirements, he observed that INEC has rarely exercised those powers proactively, leaving the courts to intervene.

He further argued that election-related litigation can arise at any stage of the electoral process where constitutional or statutory violations are alleged. Citing previous judicial decisions involving internal party disputes of All Progressives Congress in Rivers State in 2019, where court disqualified all candidates of the party because they failed to obey court orders during the party Congresses, he noted that courts have consistently invalidated elections where party primaries or congresses failed to comply with constitutional, statutory or party guidelines.

According to him, the declaration of election winners does not extinguish the right of aggrieved parties to seek judicial redress where legal infractions are established, reinforcing the judiciary’s constitutional role in safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral process.