Magaji Mato: INEC Cannot Prevent Candidates from Challenging Election Results

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Magaji Mato, has asserted that Nigeria’s electoral body, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), is powerless to prevent dissatisfied candidates from initiating court challenges against election results. He stated this perspective, even when elections are considered credible by INEC.

Mato explained in a recent interview on ARISE News that the likelihood of electoral litigation stems not only from the election process itself but also from the reactions of political figures and the general public.

"If those who contested the elections are not comfortable, even though INEC in its own understanding has conducted free and fair elections, the INEC cannot stop them from going to court to challenge the election."

The senior lawyer elaborated that the resolution of post-election conflicts extends beyond the effectiveness of institutions and is significantly shaped by how contestants perceive and accept the outcomes.

"What determines a free and fair election is what Nigerians themselves perceive."

He further noted that even if INEC successfully conducts polls perceived as credible, candidates with grievances may still opt to dispute the results through legal avenues.

"We also have a situation where, you see, Nigerians are not always willing and ready to accept defeats in electoral processes."

Mato's comments followed the federal government's proposal of a ₦135.22 billion allocation in the 2026 budget designated for electoral adjudication and post-election expenditures. This proposal has drawn criticism from opposition parties and civil society organisations.

However, Mato advised against assuming this allocation is solely for legal fees. He suggested the budget likely covers a broad spectrum of election- related expenditures.

"I do not want to take the position that that amount of money was set aside to pay lawyers by the federal government."

He added that expenses associated with elections encompass more than just litigation, including logistics, security arrangements, and the engagement of domestic and international observers.

"There are civic societies that will come to observe elections. There are foreign bodies that will come to observe elections. There are also security personnel that will be given allowances for special duties here and there. And there are other logistics that will be provided."

Regarding INEC's position in electoral disputes, Mato pointed out that the commission is invariably a party in virtually all election lawsuits, making it challenging to forecast or limit the volume of cases filed.

"You cannot count the number of lawsuits that will be filed that INEC will be making, because there is virtually no action that goes to court without joining INEC."

He described the proposed budget allocation as a "workable" provision, considering the extensive and complex nature of Nigeria's electoral system.

"So these actions are multidimensional. And if they have this money, it’s probably not for them to spend all the money. I’m not their spokesman. But I feel this is a budget, a workable budget."

Mato also addressed concerns about transparency, specifically noting the placement of these funds under service-wide votes instead of direct allocation to INEC. He underscored the importance of adhering to due process in all government spending.

"Every expenses of the government must go through appropriation process."

He cautioned that any departure from established appropriation protocols would raise accountability issues for the National Assembly.

"If it is not done so, then it is left for the National Assembly to explain within the capacities they have as to where they got the power to appropriate or to allocate this amount of money."

On the subject of reducing post-election disputes, Mato acknowledged that while INEC should strive for maximum transparency, litigation might persist due to broader legal and political dynamics.

"Let the public see that you have done all in the bit to ensure… that it is also transparently shown that it is free and fair."

He noted that the courts ultimately hold the authority to determine election outcomes, sometimes based on technical legalities that extend beyond the initial conduct of the polls.

"You have the courts who also look at other aspects, maybe technical aspects, maybe some other legal issues that probably the winner will otherwise become the loser."

Faridah Abdulkadiri contributed to this report.