Justice Obiora Egwatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmood Yakubu, to appear in person before the court on October 8, to explain why he should not be committed to prison for allegedly flouting a valid court judgment.
The directive stems from a committal application filed by the National Rescue Movement (NRM), accusing the INEC Chairman of wilfully disobeying a ruling issued on March 5, 2025, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/45/2025, according to iReporter Online.
At the resumed proceedings on Friday, Justice Egwatu voiced concern over Yakubu’s absence in a matter as serious as contempt of court, which he described as a quasi-criminal charge requiring the personal presence of the alleged contemnor. The judge reprimanded INEC’s legal counsel, Alhassan Umar (SAN), questioning why the Commission’s Chairman would deliberately avoid appearing to purge himself of the allegations.
The dispute stems from INEC’s refusal to monitor NRM’s Emergency National Convention held on January 17, 2025, despite a court order secured by the party a day earlier. On March 5, the court ruled in favour of NRM, affirming that INEC had no legal right to disregard the event’s outcome. In response, INEC filed a counter affidavit in which its Director of Election and Party Monitoring, Joan Arabs, claimed the judgment was couched in futuristic language—a claim Justice Egwatu dismissed. Since then, INEC has not appealed the judgment, and the 90-day window for doing so has elapsed, according to iReporter Online.
With the service of Forms 48 and 49 on the INEC Chairman—legal instruments notifying him of the potential for imprisonment due to contempt—the court made it clear that Yakubu must now present himself and justify his defiance. INEC’s legal team, however, has filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the contempt suit. But Oladimeji Ekengba, counsel to NRM, countered that Yakubu, having refused to obey the court’s orders, lacks the moral and legal grounds to raise such objections.
Ekengba further referenced a Supreme Court precedent—Ebhodaghe v. Okoye—to assert that jurisdictional objections cannot override the urgency of a contempt case. Although the objection was not argued at the hearing, Justice Egwatu stressed the importance of upholding the rule of law, insisting that no citizen, regardless of position, is above judicial authority.
Comments are closed.