Senator Iyabo Obasanjo, the People’s Democratic Party candidate for Ogun Centre Senatorial election, has dispelled as false growing wave of misleading reports, insinuations and politically motivated interpretations of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on Thursday, 24 September 2026, concerning certain provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
Her Media Aide, Dr. Odun Agbalajobi, said the attempt to present that judgment as an automatic disqualification of Senator Prof. Iyabo Obasanjo from the 2027 Ogun Central Senatorial election is factually unsupported, legally speculative and clearly designed to create confusion where none exists.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court judgment arose from a legal dispute involving the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) over Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The apex court upheld the validity of those provisions and set aside the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal which had declared them unconstitutional.
Obasanjo was not a party to that case. Her name was not the subject of the judgment, and the Supreme Court did not issue any order disqualifying her from contesting the 2027 Ogun Central Senatorial election.
He stated: “It is, therefore, both mischievous and intellectually dishonest to transform a judgment in a dispute between INEC and a political party into a purported judicial pronouncement against a particular candidate who was neither a party to the suit nor the subject of the judgment.”
The facts surrounding Senator Obasanjo’s political journey are also public knowledge.
She resigned her membership of the All Progressives Congress in May 2026 and subsequently returned to PDP where she was formally received and presented with the party’s Ogun Central Senatorial ticket.
These developments were publicly reported at the time by several mainstream Nigerian media organisations.
“The Supreme Court’s restoration of provisions of the Electoral Act does not, by itself, constitute a judicial declaration that every politician who has moved from one political party to another is disqualified from seeking elective office.
“Indeed, there is a fundamental difference between a court interpreting the general requirements of electoral law and a court declaring a particular candidate disqualified. The latter requires a determination based on the facts and circumstances of the specific candidate and the applicable legal provisions.
“No such determination was made against Senator Iyabo Obasanjo in Thursday’s judgment.
“It is particularly unfortunate that individuals who appear uncomfortable with the growing visibility of Senator Iyabo Obasanjo’s grassroots engagement are now attempting to manufacture a legal crisis around a judgment that did not concern her.
“We will not allow deliberate distortion of judicial pronouncements to become a substitute for facts,” he said in a press statement sent to PerSecondNews on Saturday.
Those circulating these claims should produce the specific paragraph of the Supreme Court judgment in which Senator Iyabo Obasanjo was mentioned, the specific order disqualifying her, or the specific judicial pronouncement invalidating the PDP’s nomination of her.
What exists is a Supreme Court judgment on the constitutionality and operation of specified provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. What does not exist is a Supreme Court judgment disqualifying Senator Iyabo Obasanjo.
We therefore urge members of the public, particularly the people of Ogun Central, to disregard sensational interpretations being circulated on social media and political platforms as though they were orders of the Supreme Court. The electorate deserves facts, not legal conjecture presented as judicial pronouncement.
Senator Iyabo Obasanjo remains focused on her engagement with the people of Ogun Central and on the issues affecting their communities. Her campaign will continue to engage citizens, listen to their concerns and present her case before the electorate.
No amount of misinformation, disinformation or disingenuous distortion of facts will alter the distinction between what the Supreme Court actually decided and what political actors wish the public to believe it decided.
Author
Leave a comment