Serious concerns have been raised following the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) notice of a re-run election in the Enugu South Urban Constituency, scheduled for August 16, 2025.
Stakeholders and concerned citizens say they are shocked by the electoral body’s decision, describing it as hasty and unlawful under the present circumstances.
At the centre of the controversy is an ongoing legal dispute at the Federal High Court sitting in Enugu — Suit No: FHC/EN/CS/144/2024 — which directly challenges INEC’s authority to conduct the planned re-run. Both INEC and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are parties to the suit, and court documents confirm that briefs of arguments, motions, and counter-motions have already been exchanged by all sides.
Observers have described INEC’s insistence on going ahead with the re-run as puzzling and potentially unlawful, arguing that the Commission ought to wait for the court’s judgment or any order that may arise before making any further moves.
“It is perplexing to any discerning mind why INEC would not await the court's judgment one way or the other before hastily proceeding with this election,” one stakeholder said. “The palpable effect of INEC's insistence on this re-run is a clear attempt to overreach the court, rendering any court judgment meaningless and of no consequence.”
Critics now question what influences might be pushing INEC to press on with an election that is the subject of active litigation. Many argue that the Commission, which should serve as a beacon of democracy, constitutionality, and the rule of law, risks acting in a dictatorial manner if it disregards the pending case.
Stakeholders insist that as an institution established by law, INEC must respect the courts and allow due process to take its course. They maintain that the only lawful path forward is for the Commission to wait for the Federal High Court to rule on whether it has jurisdiction to conduct the planned re-run election in the Enugu South Urban Constituency.
They warn that failing to do so could undermine public trust in the democratic process and erode confidence in the rule of law.
Comments