The Federal High Court in Abuja has set 8 December as the date to deliver its judgment in a lawsuit that challenges the authority granted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under Section 65(b) of the Electoral Act 2026 to review election results within seven days.
Key details of the case include: the action was lodged on 24 August by the Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts, a not‑for‑profit think‑tank, and its director Sam Amadi; the plaintiffs sued the Attorney‑General of the Federation, the National Assembly, the Senate, the House of Representatives, INEC and all 22 registered political parties, among them the APC, PDP and NDC; Judge Muhammad Umar of the Federal High Court fixed the hearing date after both sides filed their final submissions; during the hearing, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Kemasuode Wodu warned that Section 65(b) poses a “threat to democracy”, while the government’s counsel described the suit as “incompetent and academic”.
What does Section 65(b) stipulate?
Section 65 of the Act empowers INEC to, within seven days of a declaration, review that declaration if it receives a report indicating the result was made either (a) under duress, or (b) knowingly and willfully contrary to the collation procedures set out in Section 62(4)–(8). The plaintiffs focus on subsection (b), arguing that it allows INEC to overturn a returning officer’s result even when the alleged breach is intentional.
Who are the main parties defending the provision?
Lawyers for the National Assembly, Senate and House of Representatives, led by Williams Pius, urged dismissal, insisting the clause does not bar aggrieved parties from seeking court redress after INEC announces a result. INEC’s counsel, SAN Afam Osigwe, also asked the court to reject the challenge, contending that striking the provision could enable fraudsters to retain positions obtained through illegal means. Representatives of the APC, PDP, NDC and several other parties echoed this stance, while a handful of smaller parties – the African Democratic Congress, Action Alliance and National Democratic Party – sided with the plaintiffs.
What constitutional arguments are raised?
The plaintiffs claim Section 65(b) conflicts with multiple sections of the 1999 Constitution (79, 119, 139, 184 and 285(1)–(5)) and with Section 134(1) of the Electoral Act, which mandates that election results may only be contested by a petition before a competent tribunal. They argue that only an election tribunal, not INEC, should have the power to nullify a declared result, citing the 21‑day filing window for election petitions under Section 285(5) of the Constitution.
When will the court deliver its decision?
After hearing the submissions of the parties present, the court scheduled 8 December for its judgment. The ruling will determine whether the contested provision remains in force ahead of the general elections slated for less than three months away.
Background context notes that President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act 2026 into law on 18 February, after amendments by the National Assembly. The 2026 version retained INEC’s review power but narrowed it to cases of duress or intentional procedural breaches, differing from the 2010 Act, which declared a returning officer’s decision final except for judicial review.
The outcome of this case will shape how election results may be contested in the upcoming polls and could set a precedent for future electoral disputes in Nigeria.