The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed tomorrow, Thursday, for the hearing of a suit filed by a human rights lawyer, Ejime Okolie, seeking to stop political parties from imposing exorbitant fees for expression of interest and nomination forms for aspirants ahead of 2027 general elections.
Justice Binta Nyako fixed the date following the suit filed by Okolie against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and 19 political parties.
Okolie, suing for himself and on behalf of millions of Nigerian citizens desirous of participating in the electoral process, prayed Justice Nyako to direct INEC to issue binding guidelines that will regulate reasonable maximum thresholds for the fees.
He also sought an order restraining the parties from fixing or enforcing any expression of interest (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.
He 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 All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), African Democratic Congress (ADC), among others, as 1st to 19th respondents, also joined INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 20th and 21st respondents in the fresh suit.
The case, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/04/2026, was dated and filed Jan. 5.
Giving 11-ground of argument, the lawyer said that the application is brought in the public interest to protect the constitutional rights of Nigerians to political participation.
He said his net income for the year 2025 was less than N2, 400,000.00 (two million, four hundred thousand naira) and that many professionals and youth earn even less.
He said that before the primaries for the 2023 general elections, political parties fixed non-refundable EOI and nomination fees ranging from millions to tens of millions of naira.
Citing instances, Okolie said the APC fixed its presidential form at N100 million, governorship at N50 million, Senate, N20 million; House of Representatives, N10 million, and state’s assembly, N2 million, per aspirant.
He said the PDP fixed its presidential EOI at N5 million and nomination form at N35 million; governorship at N1 million and nomination form, N20 million; Senate at N500,000 and nomination form, N3 million; House of Representatives at 500,000 and nomination form, N2 million, while state’s assembly was at N100,000 and nomination form, N50Q, 000, respectively.
He said other parties like All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Social Democratic Party (SDP) and others also had fees ranging in millions of naira for EOI and nomination.
According to him, these fees have no statutory backing from INEC which regulates elections and set campaign finance limits through the Electoral Act, 2022.
The lawyer, who stated that the current national minimum wage is N70,000 per month, submitted that a lot of qualified workers earn less than N1, 000,000 annually.
“This illustrates the economic gulf between what ordinary citizens earn and the cost of EOI fees,” he said.
He argued that Sections 65, 106, 131 and 177 of the constitution prescribe qualifications for elective offices and do not include financial capacity.
He further argued that political parties are created and regulated under Sections 222 to 229 of the constitution and cannot operate outside constitutional limits.
Okolie submitted that INEC is constitutionally and statutorily empowered under the Electoral Act, 2022 to regulate political parties and ensure internal democracy.
He said that unless the court intervenes before the 2027 general elections, the political parties will repeat “the unconstitutional practices witnessed before 2023 elections, by fixing exorbitant fees.”
The lawyer stated that the suit is preventive, not speculative, and seeks judicial protection of constitutional rights.
Although none of the political parties had filed their defence, INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on Jan. 28, urged the court to dismiss the suit.
According to the commission, this honourable court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this 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.
But 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.
