…He is asking the court to compel INEC to issue binding guidelines setting reasonable maximum limits for such fees.
ABUJA, NIGERIA- The iNews Times | The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and 19 political parties have been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja by a lawyer, Ejime Okolie, over what he described as exorbitant expression of interest and nomination fees.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/04/2026, Okolie, who filed the case on his behalf and for millions of Nigerians seeking to participate in the electoral process, named 19 political parties including the All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), African Democratic Congress (ADC) as well as the Attorney General of the Federation and INEC as respondents.
He is asking the court to compel INEC to issue binding guidelines setting reasonable maximum limits for such fees. He also seeks an order restraining political parties from imposing or enforcing expression of interest (EOI) and nomination fees for the 2027 general election primaries that could shut out qualified Nigerians from contesting. Additionally, he wants any relief granted to apply prospectively to safeguard constitutional rights ahead of the elections.
Okolie urged the court to declare that the imposition of excessive nomination fees before the 2023 general elections prevented many eligible Nigerians, including himself, from participating in party primaries, thereby violating his right to freedom of association under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). He further argued that financial barriers that disproportionately exclude ordinary citizens from politics amount to discrimination contrary to Section 42 of the Constitution.
In his 11 grounds of argument, he maintained that the suit was filed in the public interest to protect Nigerians’ constitutional right to political participation. He stated that his net income for 2025 was less than N2.4 million, noting that many professionals and young people earn even less.
According to him, ahead of the 2023 elections, parties imposed non-refundable EOI and nomination fees running into millions and tens of millions of naira. He cited the APC’s fees as N100 million for presidential aspirants, N50 million for governorship, N20 million for Senate, N10 million for House of Representatives and N2 million for state assembly seats. He also outlined the PDP’s fees, including N5 million for presidential EOI and N35 million for nomination, N1 million and N20 million respectively for governorship, N500,000 and N3 million for Senate, N500,000 and N2 million for House of Representatives, and N100,000 and N500,000 for state assembly.
He added that other parties such as the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) also charged millions of naira for EOI and nomination forms. Okolie argued that these fees lack statutory backing from INEC, which regulates elections and sets campaign finance limits under the Electoral Act, 2022.
He contended that Sections 65, 106, 131 and 177 of the Constitution outline qualifications for elective offices without including financial capacity, while Sections 222 to 229 regulate political parties and do not permit them to act outside constitutional boundaries.
While the political parties are yet to file their defence, INEC, in a preliminary objection dated January 28, asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The commission, through its lead counsel, Sulayman Ibrahim (SAN), maintained that Okolie has no locus standi to institute the action and that issues relating to the sale of EOI and nomination forms fall within the internal affairs of political parties, which are beyond judicial scrutiny.
In response, Okolie described INEC’s objection as misconceived and constitutionally restrictive, saying it attempts to revive doctrines rejected in public interest and fundamental rights cases. He argued that locus standi is relaxed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, which encourage public interest litigation in the enforcement of fundamental rights.
He further maintained that while political parties enjoy internal autonomy, such autonomy does not extend to actions that infringe on constitutional rights, citing a Supreme Court decision. On jurisdiction, he argued that it is determined by the claimant’s case and not the defence, describing INEC’s objection as technical and lacking substance.
Justice Binta Nyako has fixed February 12 for hearing.
