Lawyers Say Political Family Ties Not Grounds For Disqualification

Some authorized practitioners have argued that household relationships with politicians don’t, by themselves, present authorized grounds to disqualify people from appointments on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The attorneys insist that such selections should be assessed underneath the related constitutional provisions, electoral legal guidelines and repair guidelines.

The attorneys, Paul Ananaba (SAN), Obafemi Gbogboade and David Babajide, director of the Lagos-based Justice and Human Rights Reforms Initiatives (JHRRI)—stated allegations of illegality should be supported by proof.

Read Also: Nigeria Must Be Bigger Than Any Political Party, Individual — Jonathan Tells Ex-Deputy Governors

They additionally confused the necessity to shield INEC’s independence and public confidence within the electoral course of forward of the 2027 common election.

Their feedback adopted controversy over the redeployment of Mrs Oluyemi Titilayo Adeyemi-Showunmi, spouse of Segun Showunmi, a spokesman for the Tinubu/Shettima presidential marketing campaign, and the nomination of Prof. Mustapha Aliu, reportedly the brother of Sokoto State Governor Ahmed Aliyu.

Ananaba rejected calls to query the appointments solely due to the appointees’ relationships with outstanding politicians, arguing that such connections don’t mechanically invalidate appointments which can be in any other case lawful.

“If the appointments meet all legal requirements and the person making the appointment is not the relation of the appointee, I don’t see anything wrong with it,” he stated.

The senior advocate stated people shouldn’t be denied alternatives to serve in public establishments due to marital or household relationships, notably after they have the required {qualifications} and expertise.

“You cannot say that because they are family members of politicians, they are suddenly disqualified despite all their qualifications and experience,” he stated.

Ananaba additionally questioned the suggestion that an INEC worker who had labored for the fee for years with out criticism ought to immediately grow to be unfit to serve due to marriage to a politician.

“I don’t think so,” he stated.

Similarly, Gbogboade cautioned towards bullying or publicly condemning the appointees with out first establishing that that they had violated a regulation or relevant regulation.

He stated the controversy needs to be assessed underneath the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and related electoral laws, reasonably than by way of assumptions primarily based on the appointees’ household connections.

According to him, Section 156 of the Constitution units out the {qualifications} and disqualifications for appointment as an INEC commissioner. Although the supply restricts membership of a political get together, he stated, it doesn’t expressly listing being associated to a politician or governor as grounds for disqualification.

Gbogboade additionally cited Section 158(1) of the Constitution, which safeguards INEC’s independence in exercising its powers, together with these regarding appointments and disciplinary issues.

He stated this provision reinforces the necessity to assess personnel selections on their authorized deserves, reasonably than on the political affiliations of appointees’ family.

The lawyer acknowledged, nevertheless, that electoral neutrality is key to the fee’s credibility.

He referred to Section 27 of the Electoral Act 2026, which he stated bars individuals belonging to political events or brazenly supporting candidates from appointment to specified election-related positions.

Gbogboade stated these provisions should be utilized in response to their scope and the duties connected to the positions involved. He added that credible proof of prohibited partisan exercise or abuse of workplace needs to be addressed by way of the suitable authorized or administrative course of.

He stated INEC should steadiness the general public’s professional expectation of an neutral electoral umpire with the necessity to shield people from unjustified assaults.

Babajide likewise maintained that household relationships with politically uncovered people don’t, on their very own, set up that appointments are unlawful.

He stated, nevertheless, that the circumstances surrounding the choices raised professional questions on electoral neutrality and public confidence in INEC, notably because the 2027 common election approaches.

According to him, the appointments’ legality would rely upon whether or not the related constitutional provisions, electoral legal guidelines and relevant service guidelines had been breached.

Babajide stated proof that an electoral officer had personally engaged in prohibited partisan exercise may elevate substantive authorized considerations. Proof that an official had used public workplace to favour a politician may result in additional authorized penalties.

He confused that though a court docket would want particular authorized grounds and supporting proof to invalidate an appointment, Nigerians had been entitled to scrutinise selections that might have an effect on confidence within the electoral fee’s independence.

The JHRRI director urged INEC to make its appointment processes clear and supply affordable assurances that political concerns had not influenced its selections.