By Gabriel Atumeyi
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reaffirmed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has the constitutional authority to designate locations for elections, including for inmates in correctional facilities across the country.
In Victor Emenuwe & 4 ORS (for an behalf of inmates in Nigeria) v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Anor (Appeal No: SC/1135/2019), the apex court held that INEC or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) possesses the discretion to determine how and where inmates will vote, whether by establishing polling units within correctional centres or relocating inmates to the nearest polling units. The court emphasized that logistical or security concerns associated with inmate relocation are not burdens that should preoccupy the inmates themselves.
This ruling follows a long-standing legal battle initiated by inmates through their counsel, President Aigbokhan, challenging a segment of the Court of Appeal’s decision which left the location of inmate voting to the discretionary powers of INEC and NCoS. The inmates had filed an application for leave to appeal and their grounds of appeal bothering on security risks and logistical impracticalities of the relocating exercise.
It will be recalled that on December 16, 2014, the Federal High Court declared it unconstitutional for INEC to deny inmates the right to vote, and ordered both INEC and NCoS to put necessary measures in place to facilitate inmate voting. However, the judgment was limited in scope to the inmates listed in the case. Dissatisfied, the inmates appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on December 7, 2018, affirmed inmates’ right to vote, granted representative standing, and directed INEC to update its National Voters Register accordingly.
However, the Court of Appeal declined to compel INEC to create registration centres within prisons, leaving the choice to either establish centres inside correctional facilities or transfer inmates to external polling units. This ambiguity, and the potential disenfranchisement it presented, led to the Supreme Court appeal.
According to the inmates’ lead counsel, President Aigbokhan, “This was a legacy application aimed at straightening some implementation curves. Electoral rights must be approached with practical and safe arrangements in place. Our appeal focused on the lower courts’ failure to address the numerical and security implications of inmate relocation for voting.”
He added: “There is typically restriction of movement on election days to enable INEC and security agencies manage elections smoothly. We hope that the imposition of impractical modalities does not effectively undermine the enforceability of the inmates’ right to vote.”
Delivering the ruling on 5th May 2025, Hon. Justice Adamu Jauro, JSC, struck out the application for leave to appeal on the ground that the right to vote of inmates has been confirmed as constitutional, the Supreme Court has no further obligation to protect it against implementation threats. Any obstruction or deviation from that right, according to the Court, can now be addressed through contempt proceedings.