INEC Guidelines: Necessary Reform or an Incomplete Solution?

Nigeria’s electoral commission is turning to mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution in an effort to contain the political party conflicts that repeatedly spill into court. The mechanism appears in the Independent National Electoral Commission Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties 2026, offering a faster and less confrontational route for disputes over party leadership, membership, candidate selection and primaries.

The move acknowledges a problem that litigation alone has not solved. Intra-party disputes have produced lengthy pre-election cases, delayed electoral preparations, created uncertainty over candidates and placed additional pressure on the judiciary. The Daily Trust reported that 1,241 such suits were filed during the 2023 general election cycle, compared with about 809 during the 2019 cycle, according to figures reported by Punch.

INEC has tried to establish an ADR process before, but the 2026 regulations represent its most elaborate effort to institutionalize it. The approach could preserve relationships within parties while reducing the time and hostility associated with courtroom battles. Its success, however, will depend on whether the framework reaches the underlying causes of party disputes and clearly defines who may participate, what outcomes mean and how decisions will be enforced.

The National Assembly also sought to discourage lawsuits through Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026, which bars Nigerian courts from exercising jurisdiction over matters concerning a party’s internal affairs. Section 83(6)(b) provided for minimum costs of N10 million against both the lawyer and the plaintiff or applicant who filed a case in violation of that provision, as well as costs incurred by INEC if it joined the proceedings.

That penalty regime has already faced a constitutional challenge. In Chris Nduka v INEC & Ors, the Federal High Court said only its Chief Judge could make rules or practice directions governing costs in Federal High Court proceedings. It therefore held that Parliament’s attempt to set or limit those costs, including the provision benefiting INEC, was an unconstitutional interference with the court’s inherent judicial power and was null and void.