Dumka Baabel

I have said it so many times that the Joash Amupitan led INEC is more comfortable taking the position of a political party, rather than an unbiased umpire that has been called to give the nation a credible election. So, as of yesterday, INEC had filed 9 grounds of appeal against the judgment of Justice Umar of the Federal High Court, which was given in favour of the Youth Party and nullified the earlier guidelines that restricted political actors from defecting after the May 10 deadline imposed by INEC. INEC did not only file an appeal, it also filed an application for a Stay of Execution of the judgment pending the determination of its own appeal. My main concern is not even the speed of light with which INEC rushed to file this appeal instead of concentrating on the greater task ahead. My real concern, the one that truly unsettles me, is the application for a Stay of Execution that accompanied the appeal. From my understanding, the judgment of Justice Umar was a declaratory judgment and ought not to be disturbed through the legal shield of a Stay of Execution. A declaratory judgment simply states the legal position. It does not require coercive enforcement or execution. That is why a Stay of Execution should never be deployed to defeat such a judgment. The primary reliefs granted to the Youth Party by Justice Umar are declaratory and self-executing in nature. The judgment merely proclaimed the legal state of affairs by declaring that INEC lacks the statutory power to abridge timeframes guaranteed by law. Justice Umar's order nullified a guideline and declared it void ab initio. In simple terms, there is no physical act or future action left to be stayed. The guidelines are already legally dead. How do you stay a pronouncement that has already altered a legal status? For example, if a court declares that my father is my father, do I need any further act to make that declaratory judgment effective? Certainly not. Such a declaration takes effect immediately. A Stay of Execution cannot stop my father from being my father unless a superior court sets that judgment aside. That is the point I am struggling to make. INEC's application for a Stay of Execution appears fundamentally and legally flawed because, by seeking such a stay, the Commission is effectively asking for judicial permission to continue enforcing an administrative timetable that a court has expressly ruled to be inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026. If such a stay is granted, political parties could be compelled to comply with an invalidated May 10 deadline while the appeal lingers in court. The practical effect would be the destruction of their statutory right to a 120-day window guaranteed by law. Even more troubling is the precedent it would create. It would mean that an administrative guideline already pronounced unlawful by a competent court can continue to operate simply because the authority responsible for it has chosen to appeal. In my humble view, the balance of convenience tilts heavily in favour of allowing the law of the land to stand as declared by the court until an appellate court says otherwise. Anything short of that risks elevating administrative convenience above statutory rights and judicial pronouncements. I am Ekene Aninze Esq.