Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja,
has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to restore the
name of Ladi Adebutu, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate
in Ogun State, to its list of candidates within 24 hours.
The judge held that INEC has no power to unilaterally
disqualify a candidate. He also held that Adebutu's right to fair hearing was
breached, noting that the power to disqualify a candidate after his name has
been forwarded "resides with the Federal High Court or State High
Court." He described the exclusion of Adebutu's name as unlawful,
unconstitutional and of no effect.
Before delivering judgment, Justice Lifu dismissed
INEC's preliminary objection seeking to throw out the suit filed by the PDP. He
said the originating summons bore the name and signature of the senior counsel
as well as the names of other lawyers in the firm, and was therefore competent.
The case
Adebutu told the court that he sought the Ogun
governorship in 2019, was the party's 2023 candidate, and took part in the
primary for the 2027 election. He said the party published his name on August
29, 2026 without any challenge, but when INEC published the list of candidates
in October, his name was missing even though he had not withdrawn. He said the
PDP and its National Secretary wrote INEC on October 14 asking it to reverse
the omission, to no avail. INEC argued that it was bound by the Electoral Act
and asked the court to dismiss the suit.
Umar Bature, the PDP's national organising secretary,
testified as PW1. He said the party submitted its membership list on a flash
drive within the prescribed time and that it contained Adebutu's name. He added
that the flash drive INEC presented in court was not the one the party
submitted, and that the party submitted a list of over 30,000 members on April
22, 2026. The judge noted that Adebutu's membership was never in doubt, as he
was the first to register as a member on February 24, 2026.
INEC's witness, Mustapha Mohammed (DW1), a programme
analyst, said the party submitted the list in hard copy and on a flash drive,
and that a search before publication showed Adebutu's name missing while his
deputy's name was present. Under cross-examination, he admitted he did not
receive the flash drive and could not know what was submitted. The judge said
the evidence of PW1 stood unchallenged, that DW1's evidence would be
disregarded, and that failure to call a material witness is fatal to a defendant's
case.
The court's reasoning
On fair hearing, the judge held that Adebutu was not
heard before INEC took its decision, so his right was breached. On INEC's
powers, he said the Supreme Court did not give INEC power to omit or remove
names, and that even if INEC believed a name was wrongly included, it must
approach a court with that power. He stressed that the power to nominate a
candidate belongs exclusively to a political party, and no authority can
nominate or remove a candidate. He found that the May 24 primary, in which
Adebutu emerged winner, was not defective and that he was validly nominated.
On timing, the judge said no one challenged the
nomination within 14 days of the primary, and it was baffling that INEC waited
until August, some four months later, to act. "This, to me, is an
afterthought," he said, warning that otherwise INEC could disqualify a
candidate a day before an election. He cited Section 77(6) of the Electoral
Act, which requires parties to make their membership list available not later
than 21 days before the election, and said it was plausible that Adebutu's name
was on the list with serial number 1536. He added that INEC should have raised
any non-participation issue in its monitoring reports.
The court ruled that INEC acted ultra vires and has no
power, administratively or otherwise, to remove the name of a validly nominated
candidate. It declared that INEC was bound to publish Adebutu's name and
ordered it to rectify the list published on October 10, 2026. It further
declared that INEC cannot announce the result of the 2027 governorship election
without the plaintiffs' participation, failing which the election "shall
be of no effect and unconstitutional."
Comments:
Leave a Reply