Connect with us

Opinion

Electoral Act 2022:The Dilemma Of Withdrawal Of Candidates-Abdu Fagge

Published

on

Barrister Abdul Fagge

 

INTRODUCTION:

The Electoral Act, 2022 came into force on the 25th February, 2022 to regulate conduct of Political Parties activities, primaries election, and general Election among others. I commend the National assembly and President Federal Republic of Nigeria for passing and assenting same respectively. The Act provides certain innovations as well as new provisions which can only be clearly and perfectly understood through the instrumentality of Judicial pronouncements.
From 20th August, 2022, when the wind of rumor starts escalating for defection of distinguished Senator Ibrahim Shekarau from NNPP to PDP to the 29th August, 2022 when he formally defected and up to today the 1st of September, 2022, I received and I am still receiving phone calls from some Honourable Attorneys General, the legal practitioners, Excellencies, Right Honorable Members, members of National and State Assemblies, Key Stake Holders of different Political Parties, Politicians, Proprietors of some National dailies and general public seeking my opinion on whether NNPP and PDP can submit names of other candidates to INEC and upon such submission INEC is obliged to accept.
The above nagging question requires not Yes or No answer. In my candid opinion, the answer can only be proffered from x-raying Sections 29(1), 31, 32(1) and 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 vis-a-vis Section 78 and paragraph 15 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution Federal Republic of Nigeria (as altered) and Section 28(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, Judicial authorities and other enabling laws.

Relevant Sections of the Electoral Act:

Section 28.—(1) The Commission shall, not later than 360 days before the day appointed for holding of an election under this Act, publish a notice in each State of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory —

(a) stating the date of the election; and
(b) appointing the place at which nomination papers are to be delivered.

Section 29.— (1) Every political party shall, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed Forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.

Section 31. A candidate may withdraw his or her candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election and the political party shall convey such withdrawal to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election.

Section 32(1): the commission shall, at least 150 days before the day of the election, publish by displaying or causing to be displayed at the relevant office or offices of the commission and on the commission’s web site, a statement of the full names and addresses of all candidates standing nominated.

Section 33. A political party shall not be allowed to change or substitute its candidate whose name has been submitted under section 29 of this Act, except in the case of death or withdrawal by the candidate: Provided that in the case of such withdrawal or death of a candidate, the political party affected shall, within 14 days of the occurrence of the event, hold a fresh primary election to produce and submit a fresh candidate to the Commission for the election concerned.

CONSTITUTION FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS ALTERED):
Section 78. The registration of voters and the conduct of elections shall be subject to the direction and supervision of Independent National Electoral Commission.

From the above cited provisions, INEC has unfettered powers to issue guidelines, time table and schedule of activities for 2023 General Election, and it is on this premise it issued time table, schedule of its activities on the 26th day of February, 2022 to regulate all the political parties activities including last day for replacement of the withdrawn candidates.

2023:INEC Commences Distribution Of Over 77 Thousand PVC’S In Kano

Therefore, I am of the firm view that INEC time table, Guidelines and schedule of activities have same force with any enabling law and they run pari – pasu and all political parties are under obligation to comply with the said Time Table, Guidelines, and schedule of activities and it is in that regard all political parties sold their nomination forms, conducted primaries and forwarded the names of their candidates to INEC all within the stipulated period provided by the time table. The submission above is supported by the case of N.D.P. VS. I.N.E.C. (2012) 14 NWLR Part 1319 at page 176 particularly page 197 para D – F.
“The Time Table is Guideline with force of law; this is because any action taken outside the published time table is fatal to the political party involved. The activities and time schedule set out in the Time Table published are not directory”.

Based on the above decision and other relevant laws cited, it is beyond doubt that INEC Time Table is not an instruction or guide but a command which all Political parties must comply with.

Therefore it is an affront to the established principle of law for political parties to even contemplate substitution or replacement of their candidates after the expiration of the last day provided by INEC in its time table and schedule of activities for 2023 General Election and for INEC to accept such substitution or replacement.

The most amazing part of the Electoral Act which I find most interesting are Sections 31, 32(1) and 33 dealing with withdrawal of candidates, date of final display of candidates and changing candidates respectively. These three sections are key to the issue under discussion and it is against that background I devoted time to carefully and painstakingly read them, and in the end my understanding reveals that there is nowhere the “last day” is stated for replacement or changing of the withdrawn candidate. Section 31 squarely deals with notification of withdrawal to INEC while Section 33 pertains to conduct of Fresh primaries.

The sections of the law were reproduced at pages 1 and 2 for ease of reference.

While rubbing mind on these issues, Two very senior lawyers whom I respect much and are my mentors, principals and still working under them argued that the 90 days period for notification of withdrawal also applies to replacement, I told them that with respect, I’m imbued with contrary position, reason being that had the law makers intended that time to apply for replacement same should have been stated.

Secondly, I asked what if Notice of withdrawal is forwarded to INEC at the anniversary of the 90 days, which is still within the ambit of law for political parties to convey such letter of withdrawal to INEC, can the political parties still organize and conduct primaries to substitute candidate less than 90 days before the day of the general election, because section 31 states categorically that “Not later than 90 days the political parties shall convey such letter of withdrawal to INEC. This will as well give another room to argue that replacement or changing of candidates can be made less than 90 days before the date of the general election on the strength of submission of withdrawal letter at the anniversary of 90 days, because the party needs to arrange and conduct primaries thereafter then the window for replacement cannot be 90 days because section 33 empowered political parties to conduct fresh primaries within 14 days of the occurrence of the event.

It is apparent that drawing 14 days out of 90 days one can safely conclude that it will certainly be less than 90 days. It is a known fact in the entire Electoral Act, there is nowhere the “last day” for replacement of withdrawn candidate is stated.

Lastly, Section 32 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022 mandates INEC to make final display of Names and Addresses of candidates of political parties at least 150 days before the date of General Election. It is therefore, my understanding that 90 days as contained in section 31 of the Act, cannot by all canon of interpretation be the last day for substitution or replacement of withdrawn candidate, reason being that it run contrary to the intendment of the legislature, and the whole essence of interpretation is to discover the meaning and intendment of the law makers taking the entire provisions in to consideration.

It is long settled principle of law that you cannot import into law that which is not stated. See the Supreme Court decision: in NDOMA EGBA V. CHUKWUOGOR (2004) 6 NWLR Part 869 page 382 particularly page 430 Paras F – H.

“……….There is no doubt that to use the common law principle of presumption of regularity to interpret entrenched constitutional right may be inappropriate. It is however erroneous to read into a clear and unambiguous constitutional provision what its does not embrace. The provision has to be interpreted strictly in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the word use without it being adorned, as it were, with ornamental words not therein to make it attractive to wider interpretation……..”

See also EBOIGBE V. N.N.P.C. (1994) 5 NWLR (Part 347) page 649.

Section 32(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 mandates INEC to make final publication of full names and addresses of all candidates standing nominated at least 150 days before the election.

It is clear from the above provision that INEC is required to make final publication of candidates in its offices and its website at least 150 days to the election and it was against that background INEC made about two publications in their offices of 36 States, its Headquarters and in its website before the 15th July, 2022 and 12th August, 2022 respectively so as to allow political parties to change and substitute their candidates where necessary before the final day for replacement.

Had the drafters of the Electoral Act, 2022 intended 90 days to be the last day for substitution or replacement they would not have stated at least 150 days to be the last day of final display of names and addresses of candidates in section 32(1).

It is long settled principle of law that to appreciate and have a fuller meaning of the law the statute shall be given community reading rather than isolated reading.

On this principle of law See the Supreme Court Decision in BELLO V. A.G. OYO STATE 1986 5 NWLR part 45 page 828 particularly 832.

“…….. in construing the provisions of an enactment, although it is the particular section that is being considered that should be the primary concern, the whole enactment should be construed as a whole…..”

Flowing from the above, It is palpably wrong to hold the view that political parties can substitute or replace their candidates at least 90 days to the election placing reliance on section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

I have read extensively the Electoral Act, 2022 particularly Section 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 and I found no clear and unambiguous provisions relating to last day of substitution or replacement of political parties candidate(s) and having no clear and specific date the wordings of the statutes should be given their ordinary meaning.

On this principle of law see OGBEBOR V. DANJUMA (2003) 15 NWLR Part 843 page 403 particularly paras D–G.

“it is the duty of Court to interpret the word of the law makers as used.”

I therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that INEC has unfettered power to stipulate in its schedule of activities and Guidelines the last day for substitution/replacement of candidates as issued in its Time Table dated 26th day of February, 2022.

To sum it up I am of the firm view that INEC by section 78 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered and paragraph 15 of Third schedule to the said Constitution has unfettered power to issue Guidelines, Time Table and Schedule of Activities for 2023 General Election including stipulating last day for replacement or substitution of withdrawn candidate(s) of political parties.

It cannot be right to say that column 6 of INEC Time Table and schedule of Activities for 2023 General Election which fixes 15th July, 2022 as last day for replacement of Presidential and National Assembly Political Parties candidates and 12th of August, 2022 as last day for replacement of Governorship and State Houses of Assembly Political Parties candidates are in conflict with Electoral Act, 2022 or 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered as there is nowhere the last day for replacement is specifically stated either in the Constitution or Electoral Act. Therefore, INEC by Section 78 and Paragraph 15 of 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of FRN has unfettered Power to organize and direct how the elections shall be conducted and it is on that strength INEC issued the said Time Table. See N.D.P VS. I.N.E.C supra.

Conclusion/Recommendation:

I will now therefore, without much ado answer that the window for replacement or substitution of Political parties’ candidates is deemed closed since the 15th July, 2022 and 12th August, 2022 respectively.

It is therefore, my humble advise that the National Assembly whenever the need arise for making further amendment, the “Last Day” for substitution or replacement of candidate(s) by Political parties be clearly and specifically spelt out in the Act.

Most obliged.

Abdul Adamu Fagge Esq., ACArb.
(Head of Chambers)
BASHIR, NASIRU (SAN) & CO.
(Member, Common Wealth Lawyers Association)
(Former Member National Executive Council Nigerian Bar Association),
(Former Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Kano Branch)
08032846588
Abdulfagge57@gmail.com

#

Opinion

President Tinubu’s Visit to Katsina: A Missed Opportunity Wrapped in Songs and Handshakes

Published

on

Jamilu Abdussalam Hajaj

 

By Jamilu Abdussalam Hajaj

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s visit to Katsina should have been a pivotal moment—an opportunity for the state to draw national attention to its pressing challenges, developmental milestones, and future aspirations. Unfortunately, what should have been a strategic communication moment for the state turned into a viral distraction.

From the streets of Katsina to the corners of social media, two things dominated the narrative: a campaign-style song from singer Rarara and a casual handshake between the President and Aisha Humaira. These moments, while lighthearted and culturally expressive, overshadowed the very essence of a presidential visit—governance, development, and accountability.

It raises a critical question: Was the state’s PR machinery asleep, or was the leadership not interested in framing the visit within a narrative that could catalyze national interest, policy focus, or even investment in Katsina?

#

In a time when states are competing for federal attention, donor support, and private capital, optics matter. Yet, in Katsina, a sitting governor was cheering a singer on and clapping joyfully to impress the President. A presidential visit is not just a ceremonial tour; it is a platform. It’s the time to walk the President through pressing realities— insecurity in rural areas, the economic potential in agriculture, the struggles with education, the underfunded health sector, the resilience of the people, and the efforts already underway to tackle these issues.

Instead, the silence around these important issues was deafening.

No strategic documentaries. No impactful speeches. No high-level stakeholder engagements positioned in the media. No community interactions that could inspire federal interventions. Not even a strong visual presentation of the state’s development agenda.

Governance is not just about doing the work; it’s about telling the story. And in that regard, Katsina missed the moment.

This visit should have been used to showcase the hard work of the administration (if there is any to show), to call for more support where needed, and to galvanize public interest and empathy. But when all that trends from a presidential visit are a song and a handshake, it’s safe to say the moment was poorly managed or, worse, completely misunderstood.

Moving forward, states must take public relations seriously—not for propaganda, but for perception, engagement, and strategic positioning. Because if you don’t control the narrative, someone else will. And often, they will focus on the trivial and mundane parts, not the transformational.

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

EFCC Probe on Refineries: Transparency or Political Witch-Hunt

Published

on

 

By Aminu Umar

The recent move by Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), to probe the handling of finances and contracts related to the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries has stirred a heated debate on whether the investigation represents a genuine drive for transparency or a politically motivated witch-hunt.

At the heart of the issue is the EFCC’s request for salary records and allowances of 14 key officials who served during the refinery rehabilitation period. These include high-ranking executives such as Abubakar Yar’Adua, Mele Kyari, Isiaka Abdulrazak, Umar Ajiya, Dikko Ahmed, Ibrahim Onoja, Ademoye Jelili, and Mustapha Sugungun.

Others listed are Kayode Adetokunbo, Efiok Akpan, Babatunde Bakare, Jimoh Olasunkanmi, Bello Kankaya, and Desmond Inyama. The commission appears focused on payments and administrative decisions linked to the multi-billion naira refinery resuscitation program.

However, conspicuously absent from the list of those summoned is Adedapo Segun, the current Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), who served as Executive Vice President for Downstream and was directly in charge of treasury, refinery operations, shipping, and trading. During this time, all payments related to the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries were made under his financial supervision.

This omission has raised several questions: Why is Segun not being invited or questioned if the goal is transparency? Why is the probe appearing selective?

Equally puzzling is the inclusion of Abubakar Yar’Adua, whose role is administrative rather than operational, while high-profile former Group Managing Directors (GMDs) such as Andrew Yakubu, and Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, who played central roles in refinery policy and contracts in previous administrations, appear to have been bypassed.

We are not saying Mele Kyari is innocent or guilty, but we must insist on a fair process,” a stakeholder familiar with the situation told this reporter. “This shouldn’t be a selective trial. The people who gave out the contracts and approved the funds must be investigated too.”

The tension is heightened by growing concerns that the probe is targeted at individuals from a specific region. Many observers fear this could deepen regional mistrust, especially if only northern executives are made scapegoats.

We are worried this is being used to paint Northerners as the only looters,” said one source. “You cannot fight corruption with bias. You need to look at all sides. This includes those who were ‘exonerated’ too quickly.”

Another burning question is why individuals such as Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, former Minister of State for Petroleum, and Andrew Yakubu, former GMD of NNPC, who had strategic influence on contract awards and rehabilitation policies, are not facing any scrutiny. Critics argue that anyone involved at any stage of the refinery rehabilitation—whether from policy, finance, or operational perspectives—should be equally held accountable.

Civil society groups and international anti-corruption bodies are now being urged to step in. The call is for an independent and thorough probe that includes all relevant stakeholders—without exception.

“We are calling on NGOs and international organisations to ensure that this is not a political trial. If you must clean up the refinery system, you must do it across the board,” the statement concluded.

In a country plagued by decades of failed refinery operations and opaque oil sector dealings, the public is watching this investigation closely. The EFCC is at a crossroads: its actions will either affirm its commitment to justice or expose it to accusations of being used as a tool for political vendettas.

For now, Nigerians wait—with growing skepticism.

#

Continue Reading

Opinion

Censoring the Uncensored: The irony behind Hisbah’s ban on Hamisu Breaker’s song

Published

on

 

By Ummi Muhammad Hassan

Following the ban by Hisbah on a new song titled “Amana Ta” by Hamisu Breaker, social media went into an uproar, capturing the attention of the public.

In the early hours of April 24, 2025, social media was filled with reactions following a press statement issued by the Deputy Commander of the Hisbah Board, Kano State chapter, Dr. Khadija Sagir, announcing the ban of Breaker’s new song. The reason cited was that the song allegedly contains obscene language.

This announcement, however, triggered a counterreaction from the public. Many became curious to know more about the song and the so-called obscene content, with some taking to their social media handles to express their opinions.

The irony of the situation is that Hisbah unintentionally gave the song more prominence, causing it to go viral. Many people who were previously unaware of the song searched for and listened to it, just to understand the controversy.

#

In my opinion, after listening to the song, it contains no obscene language. Rather, the issue seems to lie with some young women who mimed the song in a suggestive manner after hearing that Hisbah had labelled it as indecent—as though to dramatize or reinforce the claim. Some even appeared as if they were intoxicated.

To me, this is both devastating and concerning, as it reflects the erosion of the strong moral standards once upheld by Hausa women. Many young people are now making videos lip-synching the song in indecent ways. It made me pause and ask myself: where has our shyness gone? I believe this question deserves a deeper conversation on another day.

In Breaker’s case, thanks to the Hisbah ban, he became the most trending Kannywood artist in April, and his song went viral—and continues to trend.

A similar incident occurred earlier this year when the federal government banned Idris Abdulkareem’s song *Tell Your Papa*. That action unexpectedly brought the artist back into the spotlight, causing the song to trend widely.

Social media has made censorship increasingly difficult. Once a movie, text, or song reaches the internet, it becomes almost impossible to control—even by the creators themselves.

While social media censorship remains a challenge, this recent incident highlights the need for the government to intensify efforts against the spread of indecent content—through Hisbah and agencies like the Kano State Film Censorship Board.

Clear guidelines should be put in place, requiring artists and filmmakers to submit their content for review and approval before public release. This, among other strategies, could help reduce the spread of inappropriate material.

Additionally, Hisbah should be more mindful of how such announcements are made, as they may inadvertently promote the very content they seek to suppress.

Ummi Muhammad Hassan, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the Department of Mass Communication at Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via email at: ummeemuhammadhassan@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Trending