INEC Electoral Guidelines are administrative convenience to make the law adaptable for administrative purposes. At best guidelines are directives or regulations but they are not the substantive law or the constitution.

Having said that, INEC chairman’s promises of free and fair election and transmission/transfer of results do not form an element of the law.

INEC’s Promises are akin to invitation to treat. A clear departure from their guidelines and promises MAY NOT be justiciable but goes to demonstrate that INEC and INEC chairman are not trust worthy agents or entities to be believed and relied upon. Their breach is more of ethical and moral wrong than legal.

In summary, where there is conflict between guidelines, promises and the legislations, the law takes precedence. Our Electoral Act 2022(as amended) and the Constitution 1999 (as amended) supersedes INEC guidelines and the chairman’s averments.

The aggrieved political parties should focus more on the application of the letters of the law and the breaches by INEC, the agents, the security operatives, and not on the empty premises by INEC Chairman.

Harry Fanon is a philosopher and a jurisprudent attorney writing from his Ahiazu Cave.