INEC says it is ready to proceed with Warri delineation

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared its readiness to proceed with the delineation of electoral boundaries in the Warri Federal Constituency, following the completion of its internal processes and a call for a harmonised position from stakeholders. This development signals a critical juncture in a long-standing and often contentious issue of political representation in the multi-ethnic Warri region of Delta State, Nigeria. The move is underpinned by constitutional mandates and recent judicial pronouncements, including a Supreme Court directive for fresh delineation. This article examines the legal framework governing constituency delineation in Nigeria, the historical context of the Warri disputes, and the implications of INEC's current stance for electoral integrity and community representation.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) recently announced its preparedness to advance with the delineation of electoral boundaries within the Warri Federal Constituency. This declaration, coming after the commission's internal work and a request for a harmonised position from various stakeholders, marks a significant step in addressing a deeply entrenched and often volatile issue of political representation in the oil-rich Warri region of Delta State. The delineation of electoral constituencies and wards is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance, directly impacting the fairness of elections and the equitable representation of diverse communities. When such processes are perceived as unjust or skewed, they can ignite considerable social and political unrest, as has historically been the case in Warri.

This latest pronouncement by INEC underscores the commission's commitment to fulfilling its constitutional mandate, particularly in light of previous judicial directives. The complexities surrounding Warri's delineation stem from its unique demographic composition, with competing claims and interests among the Ijaw, Itsekiri, and Urhobo ethnic nationalities. The commission's readiness to proceed, while awaiting stakeholder consensus, highlights the delicate balance between legal obligations and the imperative of fostering social cohesion. This article will delve into the legal underpinnings of INEC's authority, trace the historical trajectory of the Warri delineation saga, and analyse the potential legal and political ramifications of the ongoing process.

The power to delineate electoral constituencies in Nigeria is vested primarily in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act. Specifically, Paragraph 15 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution empowers INEC to organise, undertake, and supervise all elections, which inherently includes the delineation of constituencies. The Electoral Act further elaborates on these powers, providing the statutory framework for the commission's operations.

Historically, constituency delineation in Nigeria has been a source of significant political contention, often due to its direct impact on power distribution and representation. The principles guiding this exercise, as outlined by INEC and supported by constitutional provisions, mandate that constituencies should have populations as nearly equal as reasonably possible, taking into account factors such as geographical contiguity, existing administrative boundaries, and community interests. However, the practical application of these principles, particularly in ethnically diverse and politically sensitive areas like Warri, has frequently led to disputes. The Warri Federal Constituency, comprising Warri North, Warri South, and Warri South-West Local Government Areas, has a long history of inter-ethnic tensions over the distribution of electoral wards and polling units, with various groups alleging marginalisation and underrepresentation. These disputes have often culminated in legal battles, seeking judicial intervention to compel or restrain INEC's actions.

INEC's declaration of readiness to proceed with Warri delineation is a direct consequence of its constitutional mandate and recent judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court, in the case of *Hon. George U. Timinimi & Ors v. INEC* (SC/413/2016), delivered on December 2, 2022, specifically directed INEC to conduct a fresh delineation of electoral wards and polling units in the Warri Federal Constituency. This apex court judgment forms the bedrock of INEC's current actions, making it a legal imperative for the commission to undertake the exercise. Subsequent attempts to halt this process through litigation at the Federal High Court have been dismissed, with courts affirming INEC's authority to implement the Supreme Court's directive and ruling against attempts to relitigate settled matters.

The legal principles guiding delineation, as enshrined in the Constitution and the Electoral Act, emphasise population equality, contiguity, and respect for administrative boundaries. However, the application of these principles in Warri is complicated by the deeply rooted ethnic identities and historical claims to land and resources. The core of the current tension, as highlighted by stakeholders, lies not just in the restoration of previously suppressed state constituencies, but more acutely in the allocation and arrangement of electoral wards among the Ijaw, Itsekiri, and Urhobo communities. This suggests that while the legal framework provides for technical parameters, the political and social dimensions of delineation in Warri often overshadow purely statistical considerations.

The call for a "harmonised position from stakeholders" by INEC, as reported, indicates an acknowledgement of the need for political consensus alongside legal compliance. While INEC is an independent body, Section 158 of the Constitution provides that it is to exercise its powers independently, not subject to direction or control of any authority or person. However, the outcome of its delineation, particularly for federal and state constituencies, requires validation by the National Assembly, as stipulated by the 1999 Constitution. This legislative oversight introduces a political dimension to the finality of INEC's work, meaning that even a legally sound delineation by INEC could face challenges if it lacks sufficient political buy-in from the affected communities and their representatives in the National Assembly. Recent interventions by President Bola Tinubu, leading to discussions on power-sharing arrangements and ward distributions, further underscore the political nature of resolving the Warri delineation dispute. The challenge for INEC lies in navigating these complex political negotiations while upholding its constitutional duty to ensure fair and equitable representation based on established legal criteria.

INEC's declaration of readiness to proceed with the Warri delineation exercise signals a critical phase in resolving a protracted electoral dispute. For legal practitioners, this development necessitates a keen understanding of the interplay between constitutional provisions, electoral statutes, and judicial precedents, particularly the Supreme Court's directive in *Hon. George U. Timinimi & Ors v. INEC*. Attorneys advising clients in the Warri Federal Constituency must be prepared to engage with the technical aspects of delineation, such as population quotas and geographical contiguity, while also appreciating the profound socio-political sensitivities involved.

Going forward, practitioners should closely monitor the process of stakeholder harmonisation and any subsequent actions by INEC, including the release of its final delineation report. The role of the National Assembly in validating the proposed boundaries will also be a crucial point of legal and political engagement. The Warri delineation serves as a potent reminder that electoral boundary adjustments, while rooted in law, are ultimately about ensuring legitimate representation and fostering peace in diverse societies. Legal professionals have a vital role to play in guiding communities through these processes, ensuring adherence to the rule of law, and advocating for fair and equitable outcomes that uphold democratic principles.