The Federal High Court in Abuja has mounted 8 December to ship judgement in a swimsuit difficult the power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to review election results below the Electoral Act 2026.
Judge Muhammad Umar, on Tuesday, mounted the date after the events adopted their respective filings and offered their ultimate arguments.
The swimsuit was filed on 24 August by Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts, a Nigerian not-for-profit and mental discussion board advancing unbiased considering on politics, regulation, financial coverage, and media and tradition and its director, Sam Amadi.
The plaintiffs sued the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the National Assembly, the Senate, the House of Representatives, INEC and Nigeria’s 22 registered political events, together with the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
They urged the courtroom to strike down part 65(b) of the Electoral Act 2026, which empowers INEC to review, inside seven days, the results declared by returning officers in violation of prescribed procedures.
Section 65 of the Act supplies INEC “shall have the power, to inside seven days, review the declaration and return the place it receives report from its officers, and it’s glad {that a} declaration or return could have been made —
“(a) below duress; or
“(b) knowingly and willfully contrary to the procedures prescribed under section 62 (4) – (8) of this Act.”
Subsection (b), which centres on a return or declaration that deliberately violates prescribed procedures, is the half the plaintiffs’ swimsuit contested.
The plaintiffs urged the courtroom to maintain that the mentioned Section 65(b) of the Electoral Act interferes with, alters, or units apart the declaration or results of an election made by the returning officer.
Disagreement over part 65(b)
At Tuesday’s listening to, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Kemasuode Wodu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that part 65(b) of the Electoral Act constituted a menace to democracy and requested the courtroom to declare the provision unconstitutional.
Responding, the lawyer for the National Assembly, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Williams Pius, urged the courtroom to dismiss the swimsuit, describing it as “incompetent and academic”.
Mr Pius maintained that the provision didn’t forestall aggrieved events from approaching the courts “after INEC declared an election result”.
Similarly, INEC’s lawyer, Afam Osigwe, a SAN, who’s the fast previous president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), urged the courtroom to dismiss the swimsuit, as he maintained that setting apart the provision may enable an individual who “obtained a position through fraud to benefit from that fraud”.
Also the attorneys representing APC, PDP, NDC, Action Democratic Party, Action People’s Party, African Action Congress, All Progressives Grand Alliance, Boot Party, National Rescue Movement, Youth Party and Social Democratic Party took their turns to oppose the swimsuit and known as on the courtroom to dismiss it.
However, a handful of political events comprising the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance and National Democratic Party aligned with the plaintiffs’ place and requested the courtroom to grant their prayers.
The AGF and about 5 of the 22 events, together with the New Nigeria People’s Party and Democratic Leadership Alliance, weren’t current at Tuesday’s listening to.
After listening to the submissions of these current, the courtroom mounted 8 December for judgment.
Plaintiffs’ case
Mr Amadi and the Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts requested the courtroom to decide whether or not Section 65(b) of the Electoral Act 2026 is unconstitutional insofar because it empowers INEC to review results declared by returning officers for alleged non-compliance with Section 62(4)–(8).
They additionally questioned whether or not the provision conflicts with Sections 79, 119, 139, 184 and 285(1)–(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and Section 134(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.
Section 134(1) supplies that an election and its return “shall not be questioned in any manner other than by a Petition” earlier than a reliable tribunal or courtroom. The plaintiffs argued that this provision ought to prevail as a result of it directs challenges to election results via petitions.
Mr Amadi, who swore the supporting affidavit, maintained that INEC can’t alter or put aside a consequence as soon as declared by a returning officer. He argued that solely the suitable election tribunal can problem the declaration and cited Section 285(5) of the Constitution, which supplies petitioners 21 days to file an election petition.
The plaintiffs additional argued that neither the National Assembly nor the President can constitutionally empower INEC to intrude with such declarations. Citing Section 1(3) of the Constitution, they contended that part 65(b) is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.
They warned that the power may trigger “confusion, anarchy and a breakdown of law and order”.
Describing the swimsuit as a public-interest motion, the plaintiffs argued that the Act lacks safeguards towards the “arbitrary exercise” of the power and doesn’t require INEC to hear the declared winners earlier than reviewing results. They urged the courtroom to declare Section 65(b) unconstitutional.
Background
President Bola Tinubu assented to the Electoral Act 2026 on 18 February after the National Assembly amended the 2022 Act.
Under the legacy Electoral Act 2010, part 68 supplied {that a} returning officer’s determination on scores and a candidate’s return was ultimate, topic solely to judicial review.
But this provision underwent important change in part 65 of subsequent Electoral Act 2022 and the newest Electoral Act 2026.
READ ALSO: INEC speaks on suspicious pictures in voter register
The 2022 Act supplied for the finality of a returning officer’s determination on poll validity and consequence declaration. It additionally preserves a restricted power for INEC to review declarations and returns inside seven days.
The 2026 Act retained INEC’s power of review however with a narrower provision targeted solely on the fee’s power to review a declaration or return the place it’s glad that the declaration was made below duress or knowingly and wilfully opposite to the collation procedures in part 62(4) – (8).
Section 65(a) covers declarations or returns probably made below duress, whereas Section 65(b) issues these allegedly made knowingly and wilfully opposite to Section 62(4)–(8).
That part requires electoral officers to confirm accreditation figures and votes towards polling-unit information and transmitted knowledge, look at disputed or incorrect results, appropriate errors the place mandatory, and announce verified results.
With the final elections lower than three months away, the disputed provision and its relevance to the upcoming ballot will stay unsure till the courtroom reaches a choice and, probably, ultimate evaluations by the appellate courts.
Discover extra from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the newest posts despatched to your e-mail.
