Abuja, Nigeria – 24 July 2026

In a landmark judgment reaffirming the constitutional independence of the judiciary, the Federal High Court, Abuja, has declared the controversial provisions of Section 83(6)(b) of the Electoral Act 2026, which prescribed a mandatory minimum cost of ₦10,000,000.00 against counsel and claimants who institute pre-election suits relating to the internal affairs of political parties, unconstitutional and invalid.

The decision was delivered in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/721/2026 – Christian Egbuchinem Nduka v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), National Assembly & Attorney-General of the Federation, a constitutional action personally instituted by Mr. Christian Egbuchinem Nduka, a legal practitioner, challenging the validity of the impugned provision.

Mr. Nduka commenced the suit pursuant to Sections 251(1)(q), (r) and (s), 1(1) and (3), 4(8), 6(6)(b), 13, 14(2)(a) and (c), 17, 24(a), 36(1) and 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as well as Sections 8(1), 10(b), (c) and 11(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act. He contended that Section 83(6)(b) of the Electoral Act 2026 unlawfully interfered with the constitutional powers of the judiciary, fettered judicial discretion in the award of costs, infringed the right of audience guaranteed to legal practitioners, and violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

The Plaintiff invited the Court to determine whether the National Assembly possessed constitutional authority to prescribe mandatory costs in proceedings before the Federal High Court, whether such legislation unlawfully restricted the discretionary powers of Judges, and whether INEC, being a statutory body funded entirely through public funds, could validly benefit from such mandatory costs outside the discretion of the Court.

Following extensive arguments, the Court held that Section 83(6)(b) of the Electoral Act 2026 is unconstitutional to the extent that it fixes a mandatory minimum cost of ₦10,000,000.00 against counsel and claimants.

The Court held:

“Consequently, I hold that Section 83(6)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2026 with respect to fixing a minimum cost of ₦10,000,000.00 each on Counsel and Claimant in matters bordering on internal affairs of political parties is invalid as it infringes on the discretion of the Court to award costs.”

The Court further held that the National Assembly exceeded its constitutional powers by attempting to regulate judicial proceedings, emphasizing that only the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court may issue Rules of Court or Practice Directions governing the award of costs pursuant to Section 254 of the Constitution.

In the final analysis, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge in substantial part and declared that:

* The National Assembly lacks constitutional authority to regulate or restrict the discretionary powers of Judges of the Federal High Court regarding the award of costs.
* Section 83(6)(b) of the Electoral Act 2026 unlawfully fetters judicial discretion, interferes with the constitutional functions of the judiciary, and violates the doctrine of separation of powers guaranteed under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution.

The judgment is regarded as a landmark constitutional decision strengthening judicial independence and reaffirming that the award of costs remains an inherent judicial function which cannot be dictated by legislative enactment. It also reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution by holding that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.