The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has said no to the attempt by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to set aside the judgment directing and compelling it to investigate and prosecute culprits and sponsors of electoral violence and other electoral offences committed during the 2023 general elections.
SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, disclosed this via a statement on Sunday.
INEC’s application was brought to challenge the contempt lawsuit brought by SERAP against INEC chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu over the commission’s failure to obey the July 18, 2024, judgment by Justice Obiora Egwuatu.
INEC had on December 17, 2024, filed a preliminary objection seeking to set aside Justice Egwuatu’s judgment, on the grounds of alleged “misrepresentation, non-disclosure and concealment of material facts.”
INEC also sought to relist the SERAP lawsuit against the commission so that it can be heard and determined on the merits.
But Justice Egwuatu in his ruling dated July 23, 2025, rejected INEC’s arguments and dismissed the preliminary objection.
Justice Egwuatu, in his ruling, held that, “The judgment delivered by this Court on the 18th July, 2024 is a final judgment. It is a judgment on the merits, and not a default judgment as contended by INEC. Accordingly, I resolve the issues in favour of SERAP and against INEC.”
Justice Egwuatu’s 19-page judgment, read in part, “The application by INEC is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
“Reliefs sought in an application are not facts capable of being misrepresented by SERAP. These are the provisions of a statute which the court may consider or indeed considered in arriving at the judgment INEC complained of.
“If this court misinterpreted the sections of the Electoral Act, 2022, it is the duty of the Court of Appeal to correct same by setting aside the decision and not for this court to review its decision and arrive at the conclusion that it wrongly applied the law in reaching its decision or that SERAP misrepresented facts before the court.
“The judgment delivered by this Court on the 18th of July 2024 being one delivered on the merits, can be revisited by this Court only on doctrine of the slip rule.
“In the instant application, INEC is not contending that there were errors or accidental slips, omissions or mistakes that it wants the Court to correct but it is seeking to set aside the judgment on the grounds that the judgment is a default. Unfortunately for INEC, this is not the situation here.
“The Court cannot, on the basis of ‘bureaucratic bottlenecks and administrative challenges within the INEC’ transmute the judgment delivered after a compassionate consideration of the evidence placed before the court, into a default judgment.
“A judgment on the merit can only be set aside or overturned at the Court of Appeal. Thus, INEC’s remedies lie at the appellate court and not in this court.
“The law is settled that once a court delivers its judgment, it becomes functus officio except to correct some clerical error or mistakes.
“I am of the firm view that this court is functus officio as the exceptions to the rule to imbue this court with jurisdiction to entertain INEC application is lacking on the facts of this case.
“The rationale in being functus officio is that this court will not be allowed to sit on appeal on its own decision having no power so to do.
“It will therefore not be necessary to proceed to decide on the merits the application as same will be a waste of the precious judicial time and resources of this court.
“A person who has been served a process of court cannot be compelled to defend the suit if he does not want to. Once a court is satisfied that an opportunity has been offered to the Defendant to defend the action and he chooses not to, he cannot be heard subsequently to say that he was denied a fair hearing.
“In this instance, it was not denied by INEC that the originating processes of this Court was served on it before the substantive application was argued and judgment entered. This much was admitted by INEC in paragraph 3(i) of the affidavit in support of its application.
“The Court also in the judgment delivered on the 18th of July 2024 found that INEC despite being served with the originating motion on notice failed, refused and or neglected to file any process in opposition.
“The Court thereafter compassionately considered SERAP’s application by considering the affidavit in support and the attached exhibits including the written address and eventually delivered its judgment. The judgment so delivered is a judgment on the merit.”
Reacting to the ruling, Oluwadare said, “We welcome Justice Egwuatu’s ruling as a victory for the rule of law. INEC must immediately obey the judgment. A democratic state based on the rule of law cannot exist or function if INEC and its chair routinely ignore and/or fail to abide by a final judgment of the court.
“The recurring cases of electoral bribery and violence make a mockery of Nigeria’s electoral process and participatory democracy. INEC must turn the page on persistent electoral offences, end the impunity of perpetrators, and ensure citizens’ right to vote and political participation.”
Further, the case has been adjourned to October 20, 2025, for the hearing of the contempt lawsuit against INEC.
