By TAIYE AGBAJE

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, adjourned hearing in a suit filed by a human rights lawyer, Ejime Okolie, against Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and 19 political parties to March 4 for definite hearing.

Justice Binta Nyako fixed the date to allow other respondents in the matter, including the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), file their responses to the substantive suit.

Okolie, who is suing for himself and on behalf of millions of Nigerian citizens desirous of participating in the electoral process, had prayed the court to stop political parties from imposing exorbitant fees in the sale of their expression of interest (EOI) and nomination forms to aspirants vying for political offices.

He urged Justice Nyako to direct INEC to issue binding guidelines that would regulate reasonable maximum thresholds for the fees.

He also sought an order restraining the parties from fixing or enforcing any EOI or nomination fees for the primaries of 2027 general elections that have the effect of excluding qualified Nigerian citizens from contesting in the polls.

Besides, he sought an order that the reliefs granted herein shall operate prospectively, for the protection of constitutional rights ahead of the elections.

When the matter was called on Thursday, Okolie, who appeared for himself, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing.

He said all the parties had been served accordingly.

“On the last adjourned date, I came with an ex-parte motion and my lord said I should put them on notice. So, we are ready to go on,” he said.

It was observed that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), African Democratic Congress (ADC), All Progressives Grand Alliance, Young Progressives Party (YPP), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), Action People’s Party (APP), National Rescue Movement (NRM) and INEC were represented in court by their lawyers.

However, the All Progressives Congress (APC), Labour Party (LP), New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), among others, were not represented in court, including the AGF.

Justice Nyako, therefore, said that adequate time should be given to all the parties to respond in the interest of justice and fair hearing.

“So, let’s wait for all the parties to join issues with you, then the application will be taken,” she said.

The judge, who directed all parties to ensure that their processes are filed before the next adjourned date, fixed March 4 for hearing.

Okolie, in the fundamental right suit, urged the court to declare that the fixation, imposition and enforcement of exorbitant fees for nomination forms by the parties prior to 2023 general elections, as a condition to contest in the primaries, excluded many qualified Nigerian citizens, including himself, from the contest.

Okolie said the act violated his fundamental rights to freedom of association guaranteed under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He, therefore, urged the court to declare that the imposition of financial barriers which disproportionately exclude ordinary Nigerian citizens from political participation amounts to discrimination contrary to Section 42 of the constitution.

The lawyer, who listed 19 political parties including the APC, PDP, ADC, among others, as 1st to 19th respondents, also joined INEC and AGF as 20th and 21st respondents in the suit.

The case, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/04/2026, was dated and filed Jan. 5.

But INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on Jan. 28, urged the court to dismiss the suit.

According to the commission, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as presently constituted and same should be dismissed ‘in limine.’

INEC’s lead counsel, Sulayman Ibrahim, SAN, argued that Okolie lacked the locus standi (legal right) to institute the suit.

The lawyer argued that the subject matter of the suit, which is regulation of the sale of EOI forms and nomination fees, are internal affairs of the political parties and a no-go area for the courts.

“This honourable court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit,” he submitted.

However, Okolie, while responding to INEC’s argument on points of law, stated that the objection is misconceived, constitutionally narrow and seeks to resurrect doctrines that had been consistently rejected in public interest and fundamental rights litigation.

On whether he lacks locus standi in a fundamental rights enforcement action, the lawyer said INEC’s position is legally obsolete.

According to him, locus standi is deliberately relaxed under the fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.

“The Preamble, Paragraph 3(e)of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules mandates courts to ‘Encourage and welcome public interest litigation in the enforcement of fundamental rights,” he argued.

He said the provision constitutionally overrides the restrictive approach urged by the commission.

On whether the fixing of exorbitant EOI and nomination fees is an internal affair of political parties, Okolie argued that internal affairs doctrine is not absolute.

According to him, while political parties enjoy internal autonomy, such autonomy ends where constitutional rights begin, citing a previous case by the Supreme Court.

On whether the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the suit, the lawyer argued that jurisdiction is triggered by the claim, and not the defence.

He described INEC’s objection as technically driven, substantively hollow and inconsistent with modern constitutional jurisprudence, urging the court to dismiss the objection and hear his substantive fundamental rights application on the merit. (NAN)