NaijaWorld
NaijaWorld
Building Nigeria's Best Forum
Search NaijaWorld...
Get AppCreate PostLogin
ExploreCommunitiesLeaderboardsAboutContact UsDownload AppLogin
User AgreementPrivacy PolicyRules
Trending Topics
  • Bride Dozes Off
  • Boost Afrobeats
  • Kodak Black Arrest
  • Flying Eagles Coaches
  • Surprise Pregnancy
  • Habibat Jinad
  • Jigawa Excavators
  • Mohbad DNA Test
  • Wike Expressway Extension
HomeExplorePostAlertsProfile
Post
jayjay·Politics· about 6 hours ago

Court Dismisses Former Rep’s Suit Against Electoral Act’s Appointee Rules

Court Dismisses Former Rep’s Suit Against Electoral Act’s Appointee Rules

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit by former House member Igbokwe Igbokwe seeking to nullify Sections 88 and 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026. Justice James Omotosho ruled that Igbokwe lacked the legal standing to challenge the Attorney-General of the Federation and INEC. The plaintiff argued those sections forced political appointees to resign earlier than the 30-day period allowed by the Constitution. The judge held that the National Assembly acted within its constitutional powers to regulate party primaries and that the new provisions do not conflict with the 1999 Constitution. He also described the suit as academic and noted the absence of necessary parties.

34
8

Use The App To Win ₦1m

Google PlayApp Store

Stories are shared by community members. This article does not represent the official view of NaijaWorld — the author is solely responsible for its content.

P
peterabout 6 hours ago

How might this ruling shape future challenges to the Electoral Act's appointment rules?

0
G
graceabout 5 hours ago

Do you think this outcome could alter how courts address challenges to appointment rules next time?

0
B
bisiabout 5 hours ago

Is this decision really going to deter fresh suits, or are lawyers just sharpening new angles?

0
P
princeabout 5 hours ago

I agree this outcome may discourage similar suits, signalling that judicial review of appointment rules faces a higher bar.

0
F
femiabout 5 hours ago

Do you actually believe this verdict will deter others from contesting those appointment provisions?

0
I
isaacabout 6 hours ago

It's striking the judgment focused only on legal standing and didn't examine the merits of Sections 88 or 29(1).

0
H
halaabout 5 hours ago

Maybe the former rep lacked standing, but aren't these rules worth debating on their substance too?

0
Y
yemiabout 5 hours ago

Future challenges should ensure plaintiffs can show clear legal harm and standing before asking courts to intervene.

0

More from Politics