“Section 65(b) Poses A Threat To Democracy” — Court Reserves Judgment In Suit Challenging INEC’s Power To Review Election Results

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed December 8, 2026, for judgment in a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 65(b) of the Electoral Act 2026, which empowers the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to review election results declared by returning officers under certain circumstances.

Justice Muhammad Umar fixed the date on Tuesday after counsel representing the parties adopted their respective court processes and presented their final arguments.

The suit, filed on August 24, 2026, was instituted by the Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts, a Nigerian not-for-profit organisation promoting independent thinking on politics, law, economic policy, media and culture, alongside its director, Sam Amadi.

The plaintiffs joined the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the National Assembly, the Senate, the House of Representatives, INEC and Nigeria’s 22 registered political parties as defendants.

Among the political parties joined in the suit are the All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare Section 65(b) of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional and strike it down on the grounds that it empowers INEC to interfere with, alter or set aside election results already declared by returning officers.

Section 65 of the Electoral Act 2026 empowers INEC to review a declaration or return within seven days where it receives a report from its officials and is satisfied that the declaration or return may have been made under duress or knowingly and wilfully contrary to the procedures prescribed under Section 62(4)–(8) of the Act.

Specifically, Section 65(a) deals with declarations or returns allegedly made under duress, while Section 65(b), which is being challenged, concerns declarations or returns made knowingly and wilfully contrary to the prescribed collation procedures.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs, Kemasuode Wodu, SAN, argued that Section 65(b) posed a threat to the electoral process and democratic governance by allowing INEC to review results already declared by returning officers.

He urged the court to declare the provision unconstitutional, maintaining that disputes concerning declared election results should be determined by the appropriate election tribunals or courts.

However, counsel representing the National Assembly, Senate and House of Representatives, Williams Pius, opposed the application and urged the court to dismiss the suit.

Pius described the action as “incompetent and academic,” arguing that the challenged provision did not prevent aggrieved parties from approaching the courts after INEC had declared election results.

Similarly, INEC’s counsel, Afam Osigwe, SAN, who is the immediate past President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), urged the court to dismiss the suit.

Osigwe argued that invalidating the provision could create a situation in which an individual who obtained an electoral position through fraud would be allowed to benefit from that fraud.

He maintained that the statutory power of review was intended to address circumstances in which declarations or returns were made contrary to prescribed electoral procedures.

Lawyers representing several political parties also opposed the suit and urged the court to dismiss it.

The parties opposing the action included the 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.

However, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance and National Democratic Party aligned with the plaintiffs’ position and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.

The AGF and about five of the 22 political parties, including the New Nigeria People’s Party and Democratic Leadership Alliance, were not represented at Tuesday’s proceedings.

After hearing the submissions of counsel present, Justice Umar adjourned the matter until December 8 for judgment.

In their originating processes, Amadi and the Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts asked the court to determine whether Section 65(b) of the Electoral Act 2026 is unconstitutional insofar as it empowers INEC to review results declared by returning officers on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with Section 62(4)–(8) of the Act.

The plaintiffs also asked the court to determine whether the provision conflicts with Sections 79, 119, 139, 184 and 285(1)–(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as Section 134(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.

Section 134(1) of the Act provides that an election and its return shall not be questioned in any manner other than through a petition presented before a competent election tribunal or court.

Relying on this provision, the plaintiffs argued that challenges to election results must be pursued through election petitions rather than through an administrative review conducted by INEC.

Amadi, who deposed to the affidavit supporting the suit, maintained that INEC lacked the constitutional authority to alter or set aside election results once they had been declared by returning officers.

He argued that only the appropriate election tribunal or court could determine the validity of such declarations.

The plaintiffs also relied on Section 285(5) of the Constitution, which provides a 21-day period for filing election petitions after the declaration of results.

They contended that the National Assembly and the President could not validly confer powers on INEC that were inconsistent with the Constitution.

Citing Section 1(3) of the Constitution, which establishes the supremacy of the Constitution over other laws, the plaintiffs argued that Section 65(b) should be declared null and void to the extent of its alleged inconsistency with constitutional provisions.

They warned that allowing INEC to interfere with results already declared by returning officers could lead to “confusion, anarchy and a breakdown of law and order.”

Describing the action as a public-interest suit, the plaintiffs further argued that the Electoral Act 2026 did not provide sufficient safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of INEC’s review powers.

They particularly questioned the absence of an express requirement for the commission to hear from candidates already declared winners before reviewing or altering their results.

The plaintiffs consequently urged the court to declare Section 65(b) unconstitutional and prevent INEC from exercising the disputed power.

The legal dispute follows the enactment of the Electoral Act 2026, which President Bola Tinubu assented to on February 18, 2026, after the National Assembly amended the Electoral Act 2022.

Under Section 68 of the Electoral Act 2010, the decision of a returning officer concerning the scores of candidates and the return of a candidate was final, subject to judicial review.

The Electoral Act 2022 subsequently introduced a limited power allowing INEC to review declarations and returns within seven days under specified circumstances.

The Electoral Act 2026 retained the commission’s power of review, restricting its application to declarations or returns made under duress or knowingly and wilfully contrary to the collation procedures prescribed by Section 62(4)–(8).

Those procedures require electoral officers to verify accreditation figures and votes against polling-unit records and transmitted data, examine disputed or incorrect results, correct errors where necessary and announce verified results.

While the plaintiffs maintain that the power infringes on the constitutional jurisdiction of election tribunals and courts, INEC and several other defendants argue that the provision is necessary to prevent fraudulent or procedurally defective declarations from being allowed to stand without administrative review.

Post Title: “Section 65(b) Poses A Threat To Democracy” — Court Reserves Judgment In Suit Challenging INEC’s Power To Review Election Results By Papers Nigeria.