The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) concerning the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), declaring the case as lacking merit and “purely academic.”
In a unanimous decision delivered on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court also awarded costs of N2 million against INEC’s counsel.
The appeal stemmed from INEC’s challenge to an October 17 judgment by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which had affirmed a Federal High Court ruling. The lower court had compelled INEC to recognize and include SDP candidates in by-elections conducted across 12 states.
The legal dispute originated from a suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/1525/2025) filed by the SDP at the Federal High Court, Abuja. The party contested INEC’s refusal to accept its candidates for the by-elections, despite the fact that the primaries that produced them were monitored by the Commission.
INEC’s argument centered on the validity of documents submitted by the SDP. The electoral body contended that correspondence, including candidate nomination letters, was signed by the party’s Acting National Chairman, Dr. Sadiq Abubakar, and National Secretary, Dr. Olu Agunloye—individuals it claimed had been suspended by the party. INEC maintained that these alleged suspensions rendered the documents null and void.
The Federal High Court rejected this argument and ordered INEC to recognize the SDP candidates. Although INEC complied with the order for the by-elections, it proceeded to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal. A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, dismissed INEC’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment.
In dismissing the final appeal, the Supreme Court panel, led by Justice Mohammed Idris, held that the core of the dispute had been extinguished, as the by-elections in question had already been conducted and winners sworn into office.
“The substratum of this appeal has been dissipated. Courts do not engage in the determination of academic questions,” the court held in its lead judgment.
The apex court ruled that there was no longer a “live issue” upon which it could exercise its jurisdiction and declined to entertain questions on the interpretation of the Electoral Act in the absence of a concrete dispute.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety, upholding the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.