• LP chieftain says judgment raises questions on statutory compliance, interpretation of apex court’s decisions
Alex Enumah in Abuja
Justice Peter Lifu of a Federal High Court, Abuja, has held that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) cannot on its own disqualify a candidate nominated by a political party for an election.
Justice Lifu subsequently ordered the commission to immediately publish the name of Mr. Ladi Adebutu as candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2027 governorship election in Ogun State.
Adebutu had approached the Federal High Court to challenge the exclusion of his name in the list of candidates for next year published by INEC.
While arguing that the action of the electoral umpire was unlawful and illegal, Adebutu sought an order directing the commission to publish his name as candidate of the PDP in the next year’s governorship election in Ogun State.
Delivering judgement yesterday, the court which faulted the exclusion of the plaintiff from the candidates list, also held that Adebutu’s right to fair hearing was breached, adding that the power to disqualify a candidate after the name had been forwarded “resides with the Federal High Court or State High Court.”
Among the issues the court resolved are: Whether the plaintiffs’ right to fair hearing was breached; whether INEC has the power to unilaterally disqualify Adebutu, and whether the defendant can remove the name of the candidate, among others.
On issue one, the judge held that the right to fair hearing was fundamental in Nigeria’s jurisprudence.
“It is a judicial or administrative hearing conducted by due process.
Therefore, before a decision is taken over a person, such person must be afforded the right to fair hearing,” the court said.
The judge held that the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing was breached by INEC.
“When a right is vested in a person, such right cannot be taken away without hearing from the person.
“Adebutu was not accorded the right to be heard before INEC took the decision. Therefore, the right to fair hearing of the plaintiff is breached,” the court ruled.
On the second issue, the judge said the first plaintiff noted that the second plaintiff was duly nominated by the party and his name forwarded to the defendant.
“I have taken a cursory look at the judgement of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court did not give INEC the power to start omitting or removing names of members from a party.
“INEC does not have the power to remove names or disqualify any candidate on its own. The power to disqualify a candidate after the name has been forwarded resides with the FHC or State high Court.
“The commission lacks the power to disqualify any candidate. Even if INEC believes that the name of a candidate was omitted, the commission must approach the court that has the power to remove the name.
“The power to nominate a candidate for an election exclusively belongs to a political party, and the exercise of that power is within a party,” the court said.
According to Lifu, a primary election was held on May 24, where Adebutu was nominated, adding that INEC had a duty to monitor an election to ensure that it complied with the provisions of the law.
He said the facts showed that the primary election was not defective and that Adebutu was validly nominated.
The second issue was therefore also resolved against the defendant, INEC.
Issue 3 was also resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.
The court said, “All issues such as nomination issues, publications, are all pre-election matters. Adebutu was declared the winner of the primary election on May 24. INEC did not raise any issue.
“As far as I know, no person filed any suit to challenge Adebutu 14 days after the conduct of the poll. It was baffling that INEC waited until August.
“This court has established that INEC lacks the power to disqualify any candidate.
“INEC should have approached the court to disqualify the candidate but it waited until after four months to take the action.
This, to me, is an after thought.
“If this is not resolved, there will be a day that INEC will disqualify a candidate a day to election. This must not be allowed. This would be an absurdity.
“I resolve this issue in favour of the plaintiffs,” the judge held.
He stated, “Section 77(6) says a party shall make the list of members available not later than 21 days before the election.
“It is only members whose names are contained that can participate in an election and the plaintiffs said Adebutu participated and that his name is in the list.
“INEC should have raised the issue that Adebutu did not participate in its monitoring reports.
“The action of INEC makes it plausible that the name of the second plaintiff was contained in the list and that his serial number is 1536.
The judge said the court was inclined to quash the decision of the defendant, noting that INEC acted beyond its power.
He said the commission had failed to do the needful and the court would disregard the evidence of its DW1.
“The evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged, and uncontroverted. PW1 said that the flash drive submitted was not the one INEC brought to court and that he only submitted a soft copy in a flash drive contrary to INEC’s claim.
Justice Lifu noted that the first defendant’s witness said the name of Adebutu was not in the flash drive and later turned to say he was not the one that received the flash drive.
“The law is trite that failure to call a material or vital witness is fatal to the case of the defendant,” he said.
The court consequently ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Justice Lifu stated, “Consequently, the case of the plaintiff succeeds and is meritorious. The defendant acted ultra vires. INEC has no power, either administratively or otherwise, to remove a name if a candidate was validly nominated by the owner.
“The removal is unlawful, unconstitutional and of no effect.”
The court declared that by virtue of the Electoral Act, INEC was bound to publish Adebutu’s name.
It ordered INEC to rectify the list published on October 10, 2026, to reflect Adebutu’s name.
The court also declared that INEC could not pronounce the result of the 2027 governorship election without the participation of the plaintiffs, or “the election shall be of no effect and unconstitutional”.
Meanwhile, a chieftain of the Labour Party (LP), Mr. Abayomi Arabambi, has faulted the decision of Justice Lifu which recognised Adebutu as the PDP governorship candidate for the 2027 Ogun State election.
According to Arabambi, the verdict raises fundamental questions concerning statutory compliance, judicial interpretation and the binding force of Supreme Court decisions.
Arabambi who is the National Chairman, South West (LP) stated that besides constitutional provisions, Section 84 of the Electoral Act empowers INEC to “provide rules and regulations which shall govern” political parties.
“If INEC is truly a regulator, it should be allowed to regulate. It cannot see political parties breaking the law, breaching the Electoral Act and flouting its regulations and be helpless.
“What decisions like today’s decision mean is that INEC is just a clerical office, a mere clearing house for information, documents, and stakeholders in the electoral process – without the ability to identify breaches of law or compel compliance. That is contrary to the nature of INEC as a regulator,” Arabambi stated in an open letter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who is also the Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
The LP chieftain claimed that the judgement, as reported, appears to have elevated the internal autonomy of political parties above the mandatory provisions of Sections 77(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Electoral Act, 2026.
“Consequently, it is submitted that the mere production of a different membership register during litigation cannot, without proof of its timely submission to INEC, retrospectively validate an otherwise defective nomination.
“More troubling is the reported evidence that the PDP’s National Organising Secretary admitted under cross-examination that Adebutu’s name was absent from the register submitted to INEC, attributing the non-submission of another register containing his name to an error of omission.
“An admitted statutory default cannot ordinarily be cured by an explanation of administrative inadvertence. The reported controversy surrounding serial number 1536 in the competing registers further raises a serious evidential question.
“If that serial number belonged to another individual in the register submitted to INEC, the trial court was required to resolve the discrepancy before treating the subsequently produced register as conclusive proof of statutory compliance.
“Furthermore, the proposition that INEC lacks the power to disqualify candidates must not be confused with the commission’s statutory responsibility to verify compliance with electoral requirements and supreme court judgement. Political party autonomy is not a licence to disregard express legislative prescriptions.
“The Supreme Court’s reported decision of September 24, 2026, upholding the validity of the relevant provisions of Section 77, makes it particularly important that those provisions receive their full legal effect and can be enforced,” he added.
He subsequently urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial court’s reasoning effectively permitted a political party to achieve through subsequent documentary production what Section 77(6) prohibits it from doing during the primary process.
According to Arabambi, where a statute expressly requires a political party to use the membership register submitted to INEC, a court cannot dispense with that requirement merely because the party subsequently produces another register containing the name of its preferred candidate.
“Any contrary approach risks converting mandatory electoral safeguards into optional administrative formalities,” he submitted.