… Asks court to void proviso to Section 60 (3) of Electoral Act

A prominent human rights lawyer and chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Anambra State, Dr. Jezie Ekejiuba, has dragged the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to court over the manual collation of election results proviso to Section 60(3) of Electoral Act, 2026 which he argues is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. He is seeking for the nullification of the proviso.

In the suit marked FHC/AWK/CS/102/2026 and filed on 31st March, 2026 at the Federal High Court Registry, Awka Judicial Division, Ekejiuba is specifically seeking judicial interpretation of Sections 4(2), 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended vis-à-vis the proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026. Joined in the suit as Defendants are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Ekejiuba, who is also the President of the Nigerian Voters Organisation (NVO) is praying for the following reliefs:

A Declaration that the proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 is inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 4(2), 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and is accordingly illegal, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio.
A Declaration that under Section 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, the 2nd Defendant is the only body and/or institution constitutionally vested with the powers and duties to organize, undertake and supervise elections to the Offices of the President and Vice-President, the Governor and Deputy-Governor of a State, Membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each State of the Federation, including such powers and duties to take operational decisions that falls within the 2nd Defendant’s absolute discretion particularly on the method of result transmission or collation in emergency situations.
An Order of Court Striking down, setting aside, nullifying and/or voiding the proviso to Section 60(3) of Electoral Act, 2026 pursuant to Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their officers, legal representatives, staff, servants, agents or privies or by any other means howsoever from giving effect to and/or in any manner applying, enforcing and/or implementing the impugned proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 in the conduct, direction and supervision of any election or general election in the Federal Republic of Nigeria forthwith.

The suit brought under the Originating Summons was supported by an Affidavit of 34 paragraphs and 3 Exhibits deposed to by the Plaintiff himself and also a Written Address containing his legal arguments. In his 19 – point legal grounds Ekejiuba argued that:

The Plaintiff is a Nigerian citizen by birth with his National Identity Number (NIN) Card and as such he is entitled to approach this Honourable Court for the interpretation of any provision of the Constitution in line with the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judicial decisions in Okonjo-Iweala V. Fawehinmi (2025) LPELR – 80384 SC; Edede V. Attorney-General of the Federation (2025) LPELR – 82109 SC; and Fawehinmi V. President (2008) 23 WRN 65 CA which variously held that where the interpretation of any provision of the Nigerian constitution and/or the constitutionality of legislation is in issue any Nigerian citizen should have access to Court to protect the constitution from violation.

2. The Plaintiff is a registered member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) with his party Membership Card and also a registered Voter with his Voter’s Card and his constitutional right to vote is protected under Section 132(5) and/or 178(5) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended and as such he has sufficient interest in the conduct of free and fair election in Nigeria.

The 1st Defendant, AGF as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation of Nigeria has failed in his constitutional duty to give proper legal advice to the National Assembly (NASS) and the President of Nigeria on the illegality and unconstitutionality of the proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 which provided to wit, “Provided that if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in Form EC8A signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling unit, the Form EC8A shall at all times remain the primary source of collation and declaration of result” is ex facie a speculative legislation and also a legislation on an emergency situation which the National Assembly (NASS) has no constitutional powers to legislate on.
A speculative law is bad law which is ultra vires the legislative power of the National Assembly (NASS) under Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution to make good laws for peace, order and good government of the Federation.
The legislative arm of government lacks the constitutional power to enact speculative legislation and the President of Nigeria ought to have refused assent to it as a result of the enactment of the speculative legislation contained in the proviso complained of.
Allowing speculative law or legislation to subsist with Nigerian jurisprudence could create confusion in the electoral process and open the door to election rigging and manipulation manually which will bring about bad and corrupt government in Nigeria.
Also the proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 is inconsistent with the provision of Section 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the grounds that the proviso complained of is a blantant usurpation and curtailment of the constitutional powers of the 2nd Defendant, INEC to conduct the elections via INEC’s direction and supervision as enshrined in Section 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Section 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vests the power to conduct, organize, direct and supervise elections in INEC and as such NASS cannot through the proviso usurp, curtail or undermine the constitutional powers of the electoral organ of the Federation of Nigeria.
The legislative arm of government lacks constitutional power to dictate through legislation the operational decisions that falls within INEC’s absolute discretion particularly in emergency situations such as speculated in the said proviso to wit, “if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in Form EC8A”.
The decisions on the method of result transmission in emergency situation such as “if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in Form EC8A” resides in INEC and its Presiding officers in line with the constitutional provision under Section 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and certainly not NASS to decide as in the proviso complained of.
The Principal provision of Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 has made exhaustive provisions for a compulsory electronic transmission of polling units election results contained in Form EC8A to the INEC Results Viewing (IREV) portal which remains a good and valid law made by NASS in line with its legislative power or mandate under Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended.
The proviso’s legislation to wit “if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in Form EC8A” is clearly an emergency situation or circumstance and Section 24(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026 has made exhaustive provisions for postponement of elections in emergency situations in respect of the area or areas concerned if it is impossible to conduct election as a result of other emergencies such as speculated in the proviso complained of.
The proviso complained of clearly created an entirely parallel independent provision that is capable of challenging or overriding the principal provision thereof because a proviso only typically adds conditions or exceptions to the principal provision rather than creating a new principal provision as done by the proviso.
The proviso complained of is ambiguous, unclear, vague and enacted without any prescribed method or mode of result collation known to law.
The National Assembly in enacting the proviso complained of clearly acted in breach of the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Nigerian constitution.
The bad speculative law as contained in the proviso was intended to override and negate the purpose of the principal provision of Section 60(3) of the said Electoral Act for electronic transmission of polling units results to INEC IREV portal in order to rig or manipulate election results manually.
If the proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 is accordingly struck down, it will not affect the conduct of any election by the 2nd Defendant, INEC as the electoral commission in line with its constitutional mandate under Section 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria will decide to declare any election affected in the event of any unforeseen internet communication failure as inconclusive election thus warranting the postponement of the affected election to a later date.
Pursuant to Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, the proviso to Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 ought to be accordingly declared illegal, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio for being incurably inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 4(2), 78 and/or 118 and Paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule Part 1F of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

The suit has been served and fixed for hearing on 8th June, 2026 before Hon. Justice Evelyn N. Anyadike sitting at Court 1.

Update news