A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has nullified the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) publication of Ibrahim Lukman as the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate for Oshodi/Isolo Federal Constituency I in the 2027 general election.
In a ruling delivered on October 20, Justice Akintayo Aluko held that Lukman did not take part in the party’s primary election and found that INEC breached the Electoral Act 2026 by publishing Lukman’s name even though it monitored the May 29 primary in which Olumuyiwa Owadara emerged as the winner.
The court then directed the commission to publish the name of the winner, Owadara.
The court voided INEC’s August 1 publication of Lukman as the party’s candidate and directed the commission to publish Owadara’s name and particulars without delay. It also ordered N1m in costs to be paid against INEC and Lukman.
The judgment rested on INEC’s own monitoring report, which the court said showed that Owadara “scored the highest number of lawful votes cast” at the primary.
The NDC further told the court that it held no other primary for the constituency and that Lukman did not take part in the exercise.
Nevertheless, INEC published Lukman’s name and particulars as the party’s candidate, omitting Owadara from the list.
Owadara told the court that he had completed his nomination forms and submitted them to the commission.
INEC contended that it published the names uploaded to its platform by political parties, the NDC included. Justice Aluko rejected that explanation, stating that no credible evidence supported it.
“I am of the view that the evidence of the 1st Defendant that the names it published are the names uploaded on its platform by political parties, including the 2nd Defendant, is not supported or corroborated by any credible evidence,” the judge held.
The court also noted that the NDC denied sending Lukman’s name to INEC and accused the commission of imposing him on the party, a power the court said the electoral body does not have under the law.
Justice Aluko held that since Lukman had not taken part in the primary, INEC had no lawful basis to publish him as the party’s candidate.
“The commission has no lawful basis or justification to publish the name and particulars of the 3rd Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the said election,” the judge said.
He ruled that the publication amounted to “non-compliance with and brutal violation of” Sections 29(1), 32(1), and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which govern the submission of candidates from valid primaries and the commission’s monitoring of party primaries.
The court also found no credible evidence that the NDC had invoked the statutory process for changing its candidate under Section 33 of the Act or conducted another primary.
“There is no credible evidence before the court to suggest that the 2nd Defendant as a political party took steps to change its candidate in line with the provision of section 33 of the Electoral Act or that another primary election was held by the 2nd Defendant,” Justice Aluko held.
He concluded that Owadara had proven his case with credible evidence and added that the primary was conducted in line with the party’s guidelines and constitution as well as the Electoral Act.
“It is my humble but firm conviction that the plaintiff has established by credible evidence that the primary election was conducted in consonance with the guidelines, constitution of the 2nd defendant, and the Electoral Act and that the plaintiff emerged the winner,” he said.
The judge further stated that INEC’s publication of Lukman’s name “is in violent breach of the Guidelines, the Constitution of the 2nd Defendant, and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.” ↻
In arriving at his decision, Justice Aluko relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Igboke v. Chukwu (2023), which had set aside INEC’s publication of a candidate who did not win the relevant party primary.
Lukman had contested the court’s jurisdiction, requesting that the suit be struck out on the basis that he was not properly served with the originating summons. He asserted that he was in London at the time service was purportedly effected and denied that the WhatsApp number and email address used belonged to him.
The court dismissed the objection, observing that it had authorized substituted service on August 19 after the bailiff failed to serve Lukman in person. According to the bailiff’s affidavit, the processes were thereafter served via WhatsApp on August 24.
Justice Aluko determined that the number used for service was the same one Lukman provided to INEC in his Form EC9, an affidavit of personal particulars sworn on June 27 and tendered by Owadara.
The judge remarked, “There is, however, credible evidence before the court to demonstrate that the 3rd Defendant is not truthful after all.”
The court also examined WhatsApp exchanges between the lawyers, Owadara and Lukman, which it said indicated that court processes were exchanged on August 27, 28, and 31. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Saleh v. Abah, the judge held that service on a party’s counsel who did not deny receiving the processes was valid.
The judge went on to note that Lukman filed neither a counter-affidavit nor a defense to the originating summons and had therefore “failed to controvert or deny the claims and case of the Plaintiff.”
Owadara’s legal team was led by Festus Ogun, managing partner of FOLEGAL, alongside Tofunmi Adetunji and Omobola Olayanju. Ogun stated that the judgment had reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in upholding the law.
“We are most relieved that the court has demonstrated once again that it remains an impartial institution of trust that dispenses justice without fear or favor,” he said.
He stated that the team had been confident in its legal argument against the publication of a candidate who did not participate in the recognized primary.
“The last-minute announcement of an individual who never participated in the recognized primary election as a candidate is a stain on the process and institutions manning the election and a grave injustice against the legitimate winner, which should not be allowed to stand,” Ogun said.
“We are happy the court agreed with us and ordered INEC to substitute the name for our client. This is a victory for democracy.”
The NDC, through its counsel Ikechukwu Onodi, contended that INEC did not have the authority to replace a validly nominated candidate, asserting that substitution was an internal party affair governed by statutory conditions. He further contended that the commission’s involvement in primaries was restricted to observing the exercise and requesting clarification when needed.
Segun Bello, counsel for INEC, argued that it was not the commission’s duty to determine whom a political party sponsors and that INEC was obligated to stay neutral.
On October 23, FOLEGAL wrote to the INEC National Chairman, enclosing a certified true copy of the judgment and asking for immediate compliance with the orders.
“We respectfully anticipate your earnest compliance with the said Orders of the Court,” the letter signed by Ogun stated.
