The Progressive Lawyers for Justice Forum has carefully examined the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1854/2026 between Senator Rochas Okorocha and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the All Progressives Congress (APC), and Governor Hope Uzodimma concerning the Imo West Senatorial District ticket.
We state without equivocation that the suit is statute-barred under the clear and mandatory provisions of Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Consequently, the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain or determine the matter on the merits.
The Constitutional Command;
Section 285(9) provides: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit.”
This provision is strict, mandatory, and jurisdictional. It admits of no extension, no equity, and no consideration of the claimant’s knowledge or subsequent events once the limitation period has expired.
WHEN THE TIME BEGINS TO RUN:
The primary election for the Imo West Senatorial District was held on 18 May 2026. The APC thereafter submitted the name of Governor Hope Uzodimma to INEC. These are the events, decisions, and actions that form the substance of the complaint in the Originating Summons.
A suit filed on 13 August 2026, nearly three months after the primary and well beyond 14 days from the submission of the candidate’s name is hopelessly out of time.
Treating the later publication of names by INEC as a fresh cause of action that restarts the constitutional clock is inconsistent with the settled interpretation of Section 285(9).
DECIDED AUTHORITIES ON JURISDICTION AND LIMITATION
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that non-compliance with Section 285(9) robs the court of jurisdiction and renders the suit incompetent:
- Garba v. APC (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 345— The Supreme Court affirmed that a pre-election suit filed outside the 14-day period is statute-barred and the court is divested of jurisdiction.
- Zailani v. Gumau — The Court held that suits filed beyond the constitutional period must be struck out; the limitation is strict and jurisdictional.
- Karshi v. Gwagwa (2022) — A unanimous panel of the Supreme Court set aside lower court decisions, held the suit statute-barred, and emphasised that time runs from the date of the event, decision or action complained of, not from the claimant’s knowledge.
- Abdullahi v. Loko (2022/2023) — The Supreme Court reiterated that the 14-day period is calculated from the occurrence of the event itself. Knowledge is irrelevant.
- ANPP & Ors v. Goni & Ors — The Court restated that time begins to run from the date of the event, decision or action complained of, and not from when the complainant became aware of it.
- Oni v. Fayemi (2019) and related decisions — Confirm that once the 14-day window expires, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, however meritorious the claim may appear.
The consistent judicial position is that election-related matters are sui generis. Time is of the essence. A petition or suit filed even one day outside the prescribed period is as incompetent as one filed years later. Equity cannot enlarge a constitutional limitation period.
Conclusion
Jurisdiction is the foundation of every judicial proceeding. Where a court lacks jurisdiction, every step taken, including a judgment on the merits, is a nullity. The Federal High Court, having proceeded to determine a suit that was filed outside the 14-day constitutional window, acted without jurisdiction.
We therefore call on the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment in its entirety on the ground that the action was statute-barred ab initio. The Constitution must be obeyed.
Signed
Chiedozie Nwankwo Esq
Convener Progressive Lawyers for Justice Forum
