“Warri Doesn’t Have Lost State Constituencies, INEC Is Confused” -Robinson Ariyo, Legal Practitioner

Warri, Delta State — Legal Practitioner and Human Rights Activist, Chief Robinson Ariyo, has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of confusing a

court judgments relating to the delineation of constituencies in Warri Federal Constituency, describing the electoral body’s actions as legally flawed and inconsistent.

Speaking on the ongoing controversy surrounding constituency delineation in Delta State, Ariyo said that for the past two years, INEC had been attempting to enforce a court judgment directing the commission to carry out a re-delineation of the Warri Federal Constituency.

According to him, the commission cannot lawfully implement such a judgment without first completing its report, forwarding it to the National Assembly, and waiting for the expiration of the tenure of the current House of Assembly, as required by law.

Ariyo stated that following sustained legal advocacy by the Itsekiris, INEC appears to have abandoned the re-delineation judgment and is now relying on a different court ruling concerning the restoration of allegedly suppressed constituencies.

He argued that the judgment on restoration of suppressed constituencies is inapplicable to the Warri situation and is being used as a means to bypass constitutional requirements involving the National Assembly and the current legislative tenure.

“In effect, the Supreme Court judgment regarding the re-delineation of Warri Federal Constituency has been shamelessly jettisoned,” Ariyo said. “Even those who obtained the judgment have now agreed that Warri Federal Constituency should be treated as a case of suppressed constituencies.”

He maintained that the logic behind the commission’s new position is fundamentally flawed, insisting that constituencies cannot be restored if they never previously existed, nor can they be described as suppressed if they were never established in the first place.

Ariyo specifically cited Warri North Constituency II and Warri South-West Constituency II, arguing that neither constituency had existed before, unlike constituencies in areas such as Sapele, Ethiope, and Anioma, where historical precedents for restoration could be established.

He noted that this distinction was one of the reasons the recent consultations on constituency matters did not include the Warri Federal Constituency.

“You cannot claim to be enforcing a court judgment while simultaneously engaging in actions that are contrary to the law and relying on force to achieve your objectives,” he added.

The comments come amid ongoing debates over constituency delineation and representation in Delta State, with stakeholders continuing to express differing views on the legal and constitutional implications of INEC’s actions.