The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The appeal challenged the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The court found INEC’s appeal lacked merit.

The apex court also affirmed earlier judgments. These judgments compelled INEC to recognise and include SDP candidates in by-elections. These elections were conducted across 12 states of the federation.

INEC had contested the appellate court’s decision. The commission faulted it for upholding the ruling of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court. The SDP initiated this suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1525/2025.

The SDP had challenged INEC’s refusal. INEC did not recognise its candidates for the by-elections. This was despite the fact that the electoral body monitored the primaries that produced them.

INEC argued that letters and notices from the SDP were invalid. They were signed by the party’s Acting National Chairman, Dr. Sadiq Umar Abubakar, and National Secretary, Dr. Olu Agunloye.

According to the commission, both officials had been suspended by the party. This rendered all their signed correspondence invalid. This included candidate nominations for the by-elections.

INEC maintained that internal party suspensions invalidated the legitimacy of submitted documents.

Following the SDP’s legal action, the Federal High Court issued an order. It directed INEC to recognise and include all the party’s candidates in the by-elections.

INEC complied with this order. However, it proceeded to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.

A three-man panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, delivered a unanimous judgment. They dismissed INEC’s appeal and affirmed the high court’s ruling.

Dissatisfied, INEC further appealed to the Supreme Court. However, a five-member panel of the apex court dismissed the appeal. It declared the matter an academic exercise. This was because the elections had already been conducted, and all winners sworn in.

Justice Mohammed Idris prepared the lead judgment. The Supreme Court stated it found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.

“The substratum of this appeal has been dissipated,” the court held. It added that “Courts do not engage in interventions on academic questions.”

The panel noted that nothing remained for the court to exercise its adjudicatory powers.

The apex court emphasized the absence of any live issue. It declined to entertain questions on the interpretation of the Electoral Act. Such issues, it noted, could not be resolved in a vacuum.