LP sues INEC over alleged exclusion from Enugu North by-election

The Labour Party (LP) recently initiated a suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the alleged wrongful exclusion of its candidate from the Enugu North Senatorial District by-election, scheduled for June 20, 2026. The party contended that it had fully complied with all statutory requirements for candidate nomination but was denied access by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to upload its candidate's particulars. This legal challenge underscored critical issues surrounding electoral integrity and the powers of INEC in candidate selection. However, the dispute was swiftly resolved when INEC subsequently released a revised list of candidates, which included the Labour Party's nominee, leading to the party's withdrawal of its suit.

The integrity of Nigeria's electoral process hinges significantly on the fairness and transparency of candidate nomination and the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) adherence to statutory provisions. A recent legal action by the Labour Party (LP) against INEC concerning the Enugu North Senatorial District by-election brought these critical aspects into sharp focus. The LP approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, alleging the wrongful exclusion of its candidate, Simon Eze, from the by-election slated for June 20, 2026, despite the party's assertion of full compliance with all nomination requirements.

This incident, though quickly resolved, highlights the persistent challenges political parties face in navigating the nomination process and the judiciary's pivotal role in safeguarding electoral rights. The article will delve into the legal framework governing candidate nomination and exclusion in Nigeria, examine the powers and limitations of INEC, and analyze the implications of such disputes for electoral democracy, using the Enugu North by-election case as a contemporary illustration of these principles in action.

The legal framework for elections in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. These instruments delineate the powers and responsibilities of INEC, political parties, and the judiciary in the electoral process. Specifically, the Electoral Act 2022 governs the nomination of candidates by political parties, requiring them to conduct primaries for all elective positions, which must be monitored by INEC. Section 82 of the Act mandates political parties to give INEC at least 21 days' notice of any convention, congress, conference, or meeting convened for the purpose of nominating candidates, with failure to notify rendering the event invalid.

Historically, the power to disqualify candidates has been a contentious issue. However, the Supreme Court has consistently clarified that INEC's role is primarily to organize, undertake, and supervise elections, and it lacks the power to disqualify a candidate from contesting an election; this power is exclusively vested in a court of law. INEC is expected to ensure compliance with the Electoral Act, but not to dictate which parties can field candidates. Pre-election matters, such as those concerning candidate qualification, disqualification, nomination, substitution, and sponsorship, fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The urgency of such matters is underscored by the Federal High Court's practice of opening registries on weekends and public holidays to accommodate filings within the limited statutory timeframes.

The Labour Party's suit against INEC was predicated on the alleged wrongful exclusion of its candidate, Simon Eze, from the Enugu North Senatorial District by-election. The party contended that it had meticulously complied with all statutory requirements, including conducting a primary election where a consensus candidate emerged, and duly notified INEC. However, the LP claimed it was denied access to upload its candidate's particulars onto INEC's nomination portal, an administrative hurdle it deemed unacceptable and a violation of its constitutional right to present a candidate.

This scenario directly implicates the established legal principle that INEC cannot unilaterally disqualify a candidate. While INEC is empowered to monitor party primaries and ensure compliance with the Electoral Act 2022, its role does not extend to determining the validity of a party's candidate outside of a court order. The Supreme Court, in cases such as *Action Congress v INEC*, has affirmed that only a court of law can disqualify a candidate. Therefore, if the LP had indeed fulfilled all procedural requirements, INEC's alleged administrative barrier to uploading candidate details would constitute an arbitrary exercise of power, susceptible to judicial challenge.

The Federal High Court, as the court of first instance for pre-election matters concerning National Assembly elections, possesses the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes. The LP's argument would likely have focused on INEC's non-compliance with its own regulations and the Electoral Act by preventing the party from submitting its candidate's name, thereby infringing on the party's right to participate. The party's spokesman, Ken Asogwa, specifically highlighted that the legality of their primary could not be vitiated by an INEC official's absence, as neither the Electoral Act nor INEC's regulations make physical presence a mandatory condition for the validity of a party primary.

Crucially, the matter saw a swift resolution. Following the LP's legal action, INEC released a revised final list of candidates for the Enugu North Senatorial District by-election, which included the Labour Party's candidate, Simon Eze. This subsequent inclusion led to the Labour Party reportedly withdrawing its suit. This outcome suggests that INEC, upon review or engagement, rectified the administrative omission or error, thereby upholding the party's right to contest. This resolution underscores the effectiveness of judicial oversight in compelling electoral bodies to adhere strictly to the law and ensure fair play, even in the face of initial administrative challenges.

It is also pertinent to note that issues of unlawful exclusion are now predominantly treated as pre-election matters, rather than grounds for post-election petitions. This shift, enshrined in Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution, encourages aggrieved parties to seek redress before the election, ensuring that the electoral process proceeds with clarity regarding participating candidates.

The Labour Party's legal challenge against INEC over the Enugu North Senatorial District by-election, and its subsequent withdrawal following the inclusion of its candidate, serves as a vital reminder of the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and the protection of fundamental electoral rights. For legal practitioners, this case reinforces the imperative of meticulous compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and party guidelines during the candidate nomination process. Parties must ensure that all statutory requirements, including proper notification of primaries and timely submission of candidate particulars, are strictly adhered to, as non-compliance can be a fatal flaw.

Furthermore, the swift resolution demonstrates the efficacy of judicial intervention in pre-election disputes. The Federal High Court remains the primary avenue for challenging actions or inactions of INEC that may lead to the wrongful exclusion of candidates. Practitioners should advise clients to act promptly when faced with such issues, leveraging the court's jurisdiction to compel INEC to uphold its statutory duties. While INEC's ultimate rectification of the omission in this instance is commendable, it highlights the continuous need for vigilance from political parties and robust oversight from the judiciary to ensure that the principles of fairness, transparency, and inclusivity are maintained in Nigeria's democratic process. The by-election, necessitated by the unfortunate demise of Senator Okey Ezea, ultimately proceeded with broader participation, a testament to the system's capacity for self-correction under legal pressure.