LAWYERS PETITION NJC OVER JUSTICE EGWUATU’S RULING ON IMO WEST APC SENATORIAL TICKET

A legal advocacy group, Progressive Lawyers for Justice and Equity, has petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC) over the judgment delivered by Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, concerning the All Progressives Congress (APC) senatorial nomination for Imo West District ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In the petition dated November 5, 2026, and addressed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the NJC, the group requested an independent investigation into what it described as concerns surrounding the proceedings, determination of preliminary and substantive issues, and legal and constitutional implications of the judgment.

Presstv News Nigeria learnt that the petition specifically concerns the judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1854/2026, instituted by former Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha, against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), APC and Governor Hope Uzodimma.

The suit challenged the recognition and publication of Uzodimma as the APC candidate for Imo West Senatorial District in the 2027 general elections.

According to the petition, Justice Egwuatu ruled that Okorocha won the APC senatorial primary conducted on May 18, 2026, declared him the lawful candidate of the party, directed INEC to recognise and publish his name, and restrained Uzodimma from presenting himself as the party’s candidate.

However, Progressive Lawyers for Justice and Equity said the judgment had generated significant legal and constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the court’s jurisdiction, determination of pre-election disputes, evidential basis of its declarations and the extent of judicial intervention in the internal affairs of political parties.

The group, while acknowledging that the NJC is not an appellate court and that disagreement with a judicial decision does not automatically amount to misconduct, stressed that its petition was not seeking a reversal of the judgment but an independent examination of any conduct or procedural issues that might warrant disciplinary attention.

JURISDICTIONAL CONCERNS AND PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

One of the major issues raised in the petition concerns whether the court properly considered and determined the jurisdictional objections filed by the defendants, particularly those relating to the competence and statutory admissibility of the action.

The group maintained that jurisdiction is fundamental to the validity of judicial proceedings and cannot be conferred through the consent, acquiescence or conduct of parties.

It cited the position consistently maintained by the Supreme Court that where a court lacks jurisdiction, subsequent proceedings are liable to be declared null and void.

Consequently, the petition urged the NJC to examine whether all preliminary objections challenging the competence of the action were considered and resolved before the substantive claims were determined.

It also requested an examination of whether the court adequately addressed the statutory requirements governing the commencement and determination of pre-election matters, and whether relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and applicable judicial authorities were properly considered in determining its jurisdiction.

The group further called for scrutiny of the court’s treatment of the objection relating to limitation of time, asking whether the decision was supported by the relevant statutory provisions and facts established during the proceedings.

It emphasised that the existence or otherwise of any jurisdictional defect must be determined from the actual court processes and applicable laws, rather than speculation.

LAWYERS QUESTION EVIDENTIAL BASIS OF JUDGMENT

The petition also raised concerns about the documentary and oral evidence upon which the court based its conclusion that Okorocha emerged victorious in the APC primary election of May 18, 2026.

It specifically asked the NJC to examine whether the court properly evaluated the official primary election results and reports available from INEC, alongside relevant documents submitted by the APC concerning the conduct and outcome of the exercise.

Other areas identified for scrutiny include the authenticity, admissibility, consistency and probative value of documents relied upon by the respective parties, as well as any conflicting documentary evidence concerning the votes allegedly secured by the competing aspirants.

The group also requested an assessment of whether the court’s findings were adequately supported by admissible evidence presented before it.

According to the petition, examining the judicial record would help establish whether the findings and consequential orders resulted from a transparent, impartial and legally sustainable evaluation of the evidence.

SEEKS REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ACT PROVISIONS

Progressive Lawyers for Justice and Equity further questioned aspects of the judgment relating to the interpretation and application of the Electoral Act 2026, particularly Sections 29 and 32, which the court reportedly relied upon in reaching its decision.

The group asked the NJC to examine whether the relevant statutory provisions were considered within their proper legal context, especially regarding the authority of political parties to nominate candidates and communicate their names to INEC.

It also identified the statutory responsibilities of INEC in monitoring party primaries and receiving nominated candidates’ names as issues requiring examination.

Other concerns include the evidential significance of official records and reports generated by the electoral commission in the discharge of its statutory responsibilities, the distinction between internal political party disputes and matters falling within the constitutionally recognised jurisdiction of courts, and the legal consequences of discrepancies between records maintained by political parties and those held by INEC.

The petitioners maintained that the far-reaching implications of the judgment made a careful examination of these issues necessary.

QUESTIONS JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN PARTY AFFAIRS

On the boundaries of judicial intervention in political party affairs, the group noted that although the Constitution and electoral legislation recognise a defined judicial role in resolving pre-election disputes, courts have also cautioned against unnecessary interference in the internal administration of political parties except where authorised by the Constitution or statute.

It therefore urged the NJC to examine whether the court properly identified the legal basis for its intervention and whether the reliefs granted fell within the limits of its jurisdiction.

In particular, the group called for an examination of the reasoning behind the orders directing the APC to submit the name of a particular aspirant to INEC and requiring the electoral commission to recognise and publish that aspirant as the party’s candidate.

It clarified that its position was not that courts lacked the authority to adjudicate properly constituted pre-election disputes, but that judicial intervention must remain within the boundaries established by the Constitution, electoral legislation and binding judicial precedents.

GROUP SEEKS TO PROTECT PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN JUDICIARY

The petition further highlighted the importance of preserving public confidence in the judiciary, describing the institution as critical to the sustenance of constitutional democracy.

According to the group, public trust in the courts depends not only on the correctness of judicial decisions but also on the integrity, impartiality, transparency and procedural fairness demonstrated by judicial officers.

It observed that the judgment had generated considerable public debate because of its implications for the political representation of Imo West Senatorial District and the APC’s candidate nomination process.

The lawyers argued that where substantial concerns arise over the handling of a matter of significant public interest, an independent examination by the appropriate judicial oversight institution could help strengthen confidence in the administration of justice.

They also stressed that judicial proceedings must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair, in line with the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing and established ethical standards governing judicial officers.

SEVEN AREAS FOR NJC INVESTIGATION

In outlining the grounds for its request, Progressive Lawyers for Justice and Equity asked the NJC to investigate seven specific areas, subject to what is established by the certified court record.

These include whether Justice Egwuatu complied with applicable rules of judicial conduct and professional responsibility in handling and determining the case; whether all jurisdictional objections and preliminary applications were properly considered and resolved in accordance with the law; and whether the court’s findings on the outcome of the APC primary were based on a fair, objective and legally sustainable evaluation of the evidence.

The group also requested an examination of whether statutory provisions governing pre-election disputes and political party nominations were properly applied, and whether the consequential orders made by the court were supported by the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court.

Additionally, it urged the Council to determine whether the court record disclosed any conduct, procedural irregularity, abuse of judicial authority or departure from established judicial standards that might warrant disciplinary consideration.

The final area concerns whether further action is necessary under the Constitution, the NJC Judicial Discipline Regulations and the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

EIGHT RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM NJC

The petitioners outlined eight specific requests to the judicial oversight body.

First, they asked the NJC to formally receive and register the petition as a complaint requiring preliminary assessment under the applicable Judicial Discipline Regulations.

Second, they requested that the Council obtain and examine the Certified True Copy of the October 29, 2026 judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1854/2026, together with the relevant proceedings, originating processes, written addresses, exhibits and other records necessary for an informed assessment.

Third, they called for an investigation into the handling of the matter by Justice Egwuatu, particularly regarding the specific procedural and ethical concerns raised in the petition.

Fourth, they urged the Council to determine whether the judicial officer’s conduct, as disclosed by the court record, complied with the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Fifth, the group requested that where any prima facie evidence of judicial misconduct or breach of professional responsibility is established, the matter should be referred to the appropriate investigative and disciplinary mechanism of the Council.

Sixth, it asked the NJC to afford the judge an opportunity to respond to any specific allegations in accordance with the principles of fair hearing and applicable disciplinary procedures.

Seventh, the petitioners requested that the Council take any further action considered appropriate under the Constitution and Judicial Discipline Regulations if misconduct is established.

Finally, they asked the NJC to communicate the outcome of its consideration to the petitioners in accordance with the applicable procedure.

GROUP DISTANCES PETITION FROM ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Reaffirming its commitment to the rule of law, the organisation maintained that the petition was not intended to undermine judicial independence, intimidate any judicial officer or interfere with the lawful exercise of judicial authority.

It stated that its intervention was driven by the belief that judicial independence must go hand in hand with judicial accountability.

The group also acknowledged that the appropriate remedy against a judgment considered legally erroneous is an appeal before the competent appellate court, stressing that its petition was not intended to substitute the disciplinary jurisdiction of the NJC for the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

However, it argued that judicial independence should not be interpreted as immunity from legitimate scrutiny where credible allegations of misconduct arise.

The petition was signed by Comr. Chiedozie Nwankwo, Esq., National Coordinator, and Isah Mohammed, Esq., National Secretary of Progressive Lawyers for Justice and Equity.

The organisation expressed confidence that the NJC would give the petition the necessary attention and take appropriate steps to protect the integrity of the Nigerian judicial institution.

About The Author