A marching order has been given by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to reinstate the name of the governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Party in Ogun State, Ladi Adebutu, on the Commission’s candidates’ list within 24 hours.
Justice Lifu held that INEC has no power to unilaterally disqualify a candidate from contesting an election.
The judge, who also held that Adebutu’s right to fair hearing was breached, noted that the power to disqualify a candidate after the name had been forwarded “resides with the Federal High Court or State High Court.”
He said the exclusion of Adebutu’s name was unlawful, unconstitutional and of no effect.
Lifu made these pronouncements after he had earlier dismissed INEC’s preliminary objection seeking the dismissal of the suit filed by the PDP.
“I have carefully assessed the originating summons, and I see that it bears the name of the senior counsel and was signed by him. It also has the names of other counsels in the law firm,” he said.
He said the court perused the originating summons and considered it competent.
The preliminary objection was, therefore, dismissed.
In the substantive suit, the judge said the second plaintiff (Ladi Adebutu), stated that he sought the office of the Governor of Ogun State in 2019 and he was the 2023 governorship candidate.
He added that he participated in the primary for the 2027 poll, and that on August 29, 2026, the party published his name, and there was no challenge.
“That on October, when INEC published the names of candidates, it was discovered that his name was not included, and that he had not withdrawn from the race.
“That on October 14 the PDP and National Secretary wrote INEC to reverse this but to no avail,” he added.
The judge said INEC claimed that the Commission was bound to obey the provisions of the Electoral Act, asking the court to dismiss the suit.
One Umar Bature testified as PW1 and one Mustapa Mohammed testified as DW1.
In his testimony, Bature said he was the national organising secretary of the plaintiff and responsible for the registration of new members and for the party’s register.
He said the list of members was submitted to INEC within the prescribed time on a flash drive and it contained the name of the plaintiff, the Ogun PDP governorship candidate.
The judge also argued that Adebutu’s membership of the PDP had never been in doubt, noting that he was the first to register as a member in February. 24, 2026.
Bature maintained that the removal of their candidate was not in tune with any law and urged the court to order INEC to publish his name.
He also noted that the flash drive that was submitted by the party was not the one presented by the Commission.
He pointed out that the party submitted the list of all its members on April 22, 2026, with a total number of over 30, 000.
The judge said DW1, Mustapha, testified that he was the programme analyst at INEC, noting that he supervised the exercise by PW1.
He told the court that the PDP submitted the list of its members in hard copy and on a flash drive.
DW1 said that before the publication of the final list of candidates, the department conducted a search and discovered that the name of Adebutu was not on the list but the name of his deputy was on the list.
The judge said that, under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that he was not the one who received the flash drive from the PDP, and that he would not know what was submitted.
The issues for determination were whether the plaintiffs’ right to fair hearing was breached; whether the 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 a 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 judgment 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.
“A court has no power to nominate a candidate. That has been the position of the law. The effect of the above is that no authority can nominate a candidate or remove it,” the court said.
The judge further said 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 three was also resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.
“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,” the court said.
“This court has established that INEC
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 afterthought.
“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.
Speaking further, he said, “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 on 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 who 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.
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,” Justice Lifu stated.
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.”
Author
Leave a comment