EDITORIAL: APC, INEC And The Dangerous Temptation To Play Electoral Umpire

The All Progressives Congress (APC) appears to have assumed a responsibility that belongs to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and its latest intervention in the administration of political party membership registers raises an important question about the boundaries between legitimate political advocacy and institutional overreach. When a ruling party writes to the electoral commission demanding immediate enforcement of a Supreme Court judgment against all political parties, Nigerians are entitled to ask: has the APC become the electoral umpire, or does it understand that its status as the governing party does not confer supervisory authority over INEC?

The question is neither frivolous nor an attempt to diminish the authority of the Supreme Court. Indeed, the apex court's judgments must be obeyed, and no political party should be permitted to pick and choose which laws to observe. The real issue is whether the APC, as one of the principal contestants in the forthcoming 2027 general election, should position itself as the institution that determines how INEC interprets, administers and enforces electoral regulations affecting every other political party.

In a democracy, the distinction matters enormously.

On October 9, 2026, the APC announced that it had written to INEC, urging the commission to enforce the Supreme Court's September 24 judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, which restored disputed provisions of Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026. The letter was jointly signed by the party's National Chairman, Professor Nentawe Goshwe Yilwatda, and its National Secretary, Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, while the announcement was issued by the National Publicity Secretary, Felix Morka.

According to the party, the judgment reaffirmed the requirement that political parties submit their membership registers to INEC at least 21 days before primaries, congresses and conventions, with participation in those internal exercises restricted by the statutory provisions governing the registers. The APC urged the commission to verify compliance by all parties and apply the legal consequences of established violations without fear or favour.

On the surface, the demand appears consistent with the principle that everybody must obey the law. But democracy requires us to look beyond the surface and examine the institutional implications of a governing party appearing to instruct the body responsible for regulating its own electoral competitors.

INEC Is Not A Department of The APC

The most fundamental principle that must guide this debate is that INEC is not an administrative department of the APC, an extension of the Presidency or an agency established to advance the interests of the party in power. It is the constitutionally recognised electoral commission, entrusted with responsibilities that must be discharged in accordance with the Constitution, electoral legislation and judicial decisions.

Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the establishment of INEC, while the commission's functions are set out in the Third Schedule. The institutional purpose of this arrangement is to ensure that the administration of elections is not left exclusively in the hands of political parties whose interests naturally revolve around winning power.

The governing party is therefore not the commission's political supervisor. Its national chairman cannot determine the commission's enforcement priorities, and its national secretary cannot prescribe the manner in which INEC should handle complaints involving opposition parties.

The APC has every right to draw the commission's attention to a judicial decision, submit a complaint, seek clarification of an electoral regulation or demand that the law be applied consistently. Those are legitimate activities available to political parties and other interested stakeholders.

But there is a difference between bringing a matter to the attention of a regulator and behaving as though one possesses the authority to direct the regulator's operations.

That distinction should not be blurred simply because the APC currently controls the Federal Government.

Indeed, it becomes more important when the party issuing the demand is itself a contestant in the electoral process it wants the commission to regulate. An electoral umpire must be able to demonstrate that its decisions arise from the law, the evidence before it and its own independent assessment, rather than from the pressure exerted by the party with the greatest access to political power.

The Supreme Court Has Spoken, But INEC Must Act Independently

There should be no ambiguity about the authority of the Supreme Court. On September 24, the court allowed INEC's appeal and restored provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 that the Court of Appeal had previously declared unconstitutional. The decision restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), which address membership registers and aspects of candidate nomination procedures.

As reported by Premium Times, the apex court held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution.

The ruling is binding, and political parties must comply with the applicable law. Neither the APC nor its opponents can legitimately insist that a court decision should be ignored because it has become inconvenient.

However, the existence of a binding judgment does not transfer the responsibility for implementing it from INEC to the APC. The commission must examine the judgment, determine its precise legal implications and take the measures authorised by the law.

Significantly, INEC had already received the certified true copy of the judgment on October 6. According to Premium Times' report, INEC Chairman Professor Joash Amupitan said the commission was reviewing the decision after receiving complaints from political parties, aspirants and the National Assembly.

This raises an additional question: why should the APC appear to be directing a process that INEC has already acknowledged and placed under review?

There is nothing wrong with the party communicating its position. But the commission must not allow the timing, tone or political weight of any party's correspondence to substitute for its own legal and administrative judgment.

The appropriate response is for INEC to act on the Supreme Court's decision according to law, not because the APC has demanded that it do so.

Who Watches The Ruling Party?

The danger in this development lies not necessarily in the contents of the APC's letter but in the precedent that could emerge if a ruling party begins to act as the principal monitor of its political opponents' compliance with electoral regulations.

If the APC can demand that INEC scrutinise the membership registers of all political parties, what prevents another governing party in the future from using similar interventions to place its opponents under sustained regulatory pressure?

Would the same principle apply if an opposition party wrote to INEC demanding an immediate investigation into the APC's membership records, nomination procedures or compliance with electoral deadlines? Would the commission respond with equal urgency, and would the governing party accept the intervention as legitimate scrutiny rather than political interference?

These questions are essential because democratic institutions must be governed by principles that remain valid regardless of which political party occupies the Presidency.

The APC should therefore recognise that the independence of INEC is not a privilege granted by the governing party. It is a constitutional necessity designed to protect the electoral process from partisan control.

A democracy cannot function properly if the party in power is perceived to possess both the authority to contest elections and the influence to determine how the institution supervising those elections deals with its competitors.

Even when a ruling party's demand appears legally justified, the manner in which it is pursued can create suspicions about institutional boundaries. Political leaders must understand that democratic legitimacy depends not only on what they are legally entitled to do but also on their respect for the independence of institutions whose responsibilities extend beyond their own political interests.

The Law Must Apply Equally To The APC

There is another dimension to the APC's demand that deserves attention. If the party insists that INEC should verify compliance by all political parties, the requirement must apply to the APC itself with precisely the same rigour.

The governing party cannot reasonably demand that the commission scrutinise opposition membership registers while treating its own records as beyond question. Neither should the commission presume that the APC is compliant simply because its leaders are calling for enforcement.

Every registered political party must be assessed against the same statutory requirements, timelines and evidentiary standards. Where a violation is established, the commission must apply the consequences prescribed by law, subject to the relevant legal procedures and any applicable judicial review.

This is not a call for selective enforcement in the opposite direction. It is a demand for impartial administration.

The APC should welcome such an approach because a genuinely consistent enforcement process would demonstrate that its appeal is about compliance with the law rather than the political fortunes of the governing party.

It must also be recognised that the consequences of non-compliance can be substantial. The Supreme Court's decision has implications for a party's ability to field candidates, depending on the nature of the breach and the applicable statutory provisions. Such consequences must not be imposed casually, through political declarations or on the strength of an opponent's allegations alone.

INEC must establish the relevant facts, follow the law and distinguish between the legal consequences for a political party and the personal eligibility of an individual aspirant. Every affected party must be treated in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

The commission's credibility will depend on its willingness to apply these principles even when doing so displeases the party in power.

Internal Party Democracy Cannot Be Built On Political Intimidation

The controversy also highlights a genuine problem within Nigeria's political system: the credibility of internal party democracy.

Membership registers are important because political parties must be able to establish who their members are and who is eligible to participate in primaries, congresses and conventions under the applicable rules. Transparent records can help prevent disputes over membership, reduce opportunities for manipulation and strengthen confidence in the nomination of candidates.

The Supreme Court's decision has reinforced the statutory framework governing these processes. Political parties should therefore organise their records, meet the prescribed deadlines and prepare for the 2027 elections without assuming that administrative shortcuts will be excused.

But internal democracy will not be strengthened merely because the APC has demanded enforcement. It will be strengthened when every party complies with the law, when the electoral commission applies the same standards to all parties and when aggrieved aspirants have access to the legal remedies available to them.

Nor should the membership-register controversy become a pretext for political intimidation or an instrument for eliminating opponents through administrative manoeuvres. Compliance must be established through evidence, not assumption; sanctions must follow the law, not partisan pressure.

If the APC is genuinely concerned about electoral integrity, it should be equally concerned about the integrity of its own internal processes and the independence of the institution responsible for supervising them.

INEC Must Resist Every Form Of Partisan Pressure

The responsibility now rests with INEC to demonstrate that it understands the constitutional significance of its position.

The commission should communicate its interpretation of the judgment, explain the applicable compliance requirements and provide political parties with clear guidance on the steps they must take. It should establish a transparent process for verifying membership registers, investigating complaints and addressing breaches.

Where necessary, it should explain the legal basis for its decisions so that parties and the public can distinguish lawful enforcement from arbitrary administrative action.

Above all, INEC must ensure that its dealings with the APC are no different in principle from its dealings with the opposition parties. It should neither grant the governing party special influence nor dismiss its complaints merely because they come from a political competitor.

The test of independence is not whether INEC agrees or disagrees with the APC. It is whether the commission reaches its decisions on the basis of the law and the evidence, without allowing any party to dictate the outcome.

The Presidency and the governing party should equally respect that institutional boundary. Holding political power does not confer ownership of every public institution, and the authority to govern does not include the right to direct an independent electoral commission in the performance of its statutory duties.

The Umpire Must Remain The Umpire

The APC's letter may have been intended to demonstrate its commitment to compliance with the Electoral Act, but it has also brought an important democratic question into sharp focus: who determines how Nigeria's electoral laws are administered?

The answer cannot be the ruling party. It must be the institution constitutionally and legally empowered to do so, acting within the limits of its mandate and subject to the law.

The APC can make representations to INEC, just as the Labour Party, the Peoples Democratic Party, the African Democratic Congress and every other registered political party can do. It can draw attention to alleged violations, request investigations and insist that court judgments be respected. What it cannot do is convert these legitimate rights into a claim to supervisory authority over the commission.

The Supreme Court has delivered its judgment. It is now INEC's responsibility to implement it faithfully, impartially and transparently. The commission does not need the APC's permission to perform its duties, nor should it require the party's approval before deciding how the law applies to any political organisation.

As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general election, the independence of INEC must be protected not only against direct interference but also against the gradual normalisation of partisan attempts to influence its operations.

The governing party must remember that it is a contestant, not the referee. Its responsibility is to compete within the law, just as every opposition party must do. The commission's responsibility is to enforce that law without fear or favour.

The APC is entitled to demand compliance, but it is not entitled to command the umpire. In a democracy, the party in power must never be allowed to confuse the authority to govern with the authority to regulate its political opponents.