FCT Elections: Supreme Court, Appeal Court ignore Wike’s public holiday order

…As PLAC questions legal grounds for abuja shutdown

Court sessions went ahead on Friday at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, even though Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory,, had announced a public holiday across Abuja.

At the Supreme Court, matters previously scheduled were heard as planned, while different panels at the Court of Appeal issued decisions and rulings in a range of cases, including disputes relating to contracts.

The proceedings were attended by several lawyers, among them Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), despite the holiday declaration.

In contrast, activities at the Federal High Court and the FCT High Court were brought to a halt.

The FCT High Court fully observed the holiday directive and did not sit. Although the Federal High Court located next to the Ministry of Justice headquarters opened its courtrooms, no judges presided over any matters.

The holiday had been declared by the FCT Minister to allow residents of Abuja to take part in the Area Council elections scheduled for Saturday.

However, the decision has attracted criticism from various Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), which described it as an excessive exercise of authority and pointed out that there is no known precedent for such a move.

The Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), through a statement signed by its Executive Director, Clement Nwankwo, argued that the government had failed to publicly explain the legal or administrative foundation for imposing such a broad shutdown.

According to PLAC, although promoting voter participation is both valid and commendable, any governmental action must remain lawful, proportionate, consultative, and carefully considered.

The abrupt announcement of the holiday effectively shutting down the city from Friday evening until Saturday evening—caused significant disruption for residents, businesses, students, and workers throughout the FCT.

PLAC further stated that rather than strengthening public trust in the electoral process, the measure had instead triggered unnecessary frustration, uncertainty, and concern.

It emphasized that elections should take place in a peaceful, open, and normal environment, not in circumstances that suggest emergency measures or unusual state control.