A recent directive by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu requiring political appointees seeking elective office in 2027 to resign by March 31 has sparked legal debate, with experts arguing that the order is not explicitly backed by law.
The presidency based the directive on provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, particularly Section 88(1), as well as the timetable released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
However, a closer interpretation of Section 88(1) shows that it only prohibits political appointees from participating in party primaries—either as delegates or aspirants—while still in office. The law does not specify a fixed deadline for resignation.
INEC’s timetable places party primaries between April 23 and May 30, 2026, meaning appointees are only required to vacate their positions before participating in those primaries, not necessarily by March 31.
This suggests that while resignation is legally necessary, the exact timing is flexible and not dictated by statute.
Some appointees, including Yusuf Tuggar and Said Alkali, have already stepped down in compliance with the directive, signaling early political positioning ahead of the 2027 elections.
Legal and political analysts argue that the March 31 deadline is more of an administrative directive than a legal requirement. According to Cyril Hart, a member of the House of Representatives, the law only requires that appointees must not be in office on the day of party primaries—meaning resignation could technically occur even shortly before the primaries.
Observers believe the president’s decision may be aimed at creating a buffer period between resignation and political participation, reducing the influence of incumbency and ensuring a more level playing field.
While the directive may not carry the force of law, it reflects an attempt to enforce political discipline within the administration and prevent conflicts between governance and campaign activities as the 2027 elections approach.
