Juliet Ezeh
An Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Monday delivered a significant ruling in the ongoing legal dispute surrounding alleged electoral forgery in Abia State, dismissing an application filed by former Minister of State for Labour, Nkeiruka Onyejeocha, seeking to be joined in a suit against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CV/1308/2025, was instituted by Amobi Ogah, who is asking the court to compel INEC to conclude its investigation and initiate criminal prosecution over allegations of forgery linked to the 2023 National Assembly election in Isuikwuato/Umunneochi Federal Constituency of Abia State.
Presiding over the matter, Justice M.G Umar ruled that Onyejeocha’s application to be joined as a party in the suit lacked merit and was unnecessary for the determination of the case. The court held that the issues raised in the substantive suit could be effectively resolved between the applicant, Ogah, and the electoral body without her inclusion.
Onyejeocha, through her legal representatives, had approached the court seeking leave to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the outcome of the case could directly affect her rights and interests, given that the allegations of forgery were made against her.
However, the court disagreed with this position, maintaining that the primary relief sought by Ogah was a mandamus order compelling INEC to carry out its statutory duty of investigating and prosecuting alleged electoral offences. As such, the judge held that the presence of Onyejeocha was not essential at this stage of the proceedings.
The legal dispute stems from the contentious 2023 National Assembly election, which has been the subject of prolonged litigation between Ogah and Onyejeocha. The matter had previously traversed the Election Petition Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, both of which delivered judgments in favour of Ogah.
Central to the controversy are allegations that Onyejeocha presented forged election results during tribunal proceedings. These claims have remained a major point of dispute throughout the legal battle.
During earlier proceedings, INEC reportedly distanced itself from the documents presented by Onyejeocha at the tribunal, stating that the results did not originate from its office. This position, according to Ogah’s legal team, reinforced the credibility of the results he submitted and further justified calls for a thorough criminal investigation.
Ogah has consistently maintained that the electoral body must be compelled to act, insisting that failure to prosecute alleged electoral offences undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic process.
Reacting to the ruling, lead counsel to Ogah, Umeh Kalu, SAN, described the court’s decision as a victory for the rule of law. He stated that the judgment aligns with both legal principles and the facts presented before the court.
Kalu argued that Onyejeocha’s attempt to join the suit was legally misplaced, emphasizing that the case is fundamentally about compelling a public institution to perform its statutory responsibilities.
According to him, the court has affirmed that this matter can be effectively determined without the inclusion of the party seeking to be joined. He added that the focus remains on whether INEC has fulfilled its duty under the law.
He further reiterated his client’s position that the electoral body must not shy away from investigating and prosecuting alleged cases of electoral malpractice, especially those bordering on forgery.
On the other hand, counsel representing Onyejeocha, John Agim, SAN, expressed reservations about the ruling. He disclosed that the legal team would carefully study the court’s decision and determine the next line of action, which may include filing an appeal.
The development marks another twist in the protracted legal tussle between the two political figures, highlighting ongoing concerns about electoral accountability and the enforcement of electoral laws in Nigeria.
Legal analysts note that the outcome of the substantive suit could have broader implications for the role of INEC in prosecuting electoral offences, a responsibility that has often been criticized as inadequately enforced.
The court’s refusal to join Onyejeocha at this stage does not determine her culpability or innocence regarding the forgery allegations. Instead, it narrows the focus of the current proceedings to whether INEC can be compelled to act on the allegations brought before it.
As the case progresses, attention is expected to shift to INEC’s response and whether the court will grant the mandamus order sought by Ogah.
For observers, the ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in shaping electoral accountability, particularly in cases where administrative bodies are accused of failing to carry out their legal obligations.
The matter has been adjourned for further proceedings, with both parties expected to return to court as the legal battle continues.