Author
Listed:
- Akin O. Oluwadayisi
(Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria)
- Olugbenga Oke-Samuel
(Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria)
- Olamide O. Mohammed
(Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria)
- Dauda A. Ariyoosu
(University of Ilorin, Nigeria)
Abstract
The incidence of inconclusive elections in Nigeria has attracted diverse perspectives in recent times. The significance of this discourse to the consolidation of Nigeria’s democracy cannot be ignored considering its consequential effects on the country’s electoral process. In what seems to be an unusual jurisprudential and political development was the case of John Faleke v Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Anor which posed a peculiar scenario that was unprecedented to the evolution of electoral disputes in Nigeria. In line with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), the Independent National Electoral Commission is empowered to organize or undertake and to supervise all elections to key offices including those of the President and Vice President, Governor, and Deputy Governor among others. It is in the exercise of this power that the INEC developed the Electoral Act and Election Manual used for all general elections which authorized the INEC to declare elections inconclusive or to schedule a rerun election where appropriate. Several arguments have arisen as to the constitutionality of the declaration by INEC. The first notorious case was the Kogi State Gubernatorial Election held on November 21, 2015, as an inconclusive election. It is against this background that the paper examines the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of James Faleke v INEC, the provision of the Electoral Act 2022 and Election Manual which affirms the legality of the INEC’s power and the correctness of the declaration of inconclusive election. It argues that the declaration of election as inconclusive is in line with the Electoral Act and the Constitution. The paper further posits the fundamental grounds or conditions upon which an election can be declared as ‘inconclusive.’ However, it suggests that there is a need to carefully thread the path of application of the provisions on inconclusive election in order to avoid a situation where it is being deployed as a manipulative tool for the benefit of the ruling party.
Suggested Citation
Handle:
RePEc:epw:politi:v:2:y:2023:i:3:id:8079
DOI: 10.24018/ejpolitics.2023.2.3.79
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:politi:v:2:y:2023:i:3:id:8079. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/politics .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.