Federal High Court: INEC Candidate Replacement Ordered, Publication Nullified

• A Federal High Court in Lagos nullified INEC's publication of Ibrahim Lukman as the NDC candidate for Oshodi/Isolo Federal Constituency I.
• Justice Akintayo Aluko ruled that Lukman did not participate in the primary election, and INEC breached the Electoral Act 2026 by publishing his name.
• The court ordered INEC to replace Lukman with Olumuyiwa Owadara, who won the May 29 primary election.
• INEC and Lukman were jointly ordered to pay N1 million in costs.
• The judgment emphasized that INEC's own monitoring report confirmed Owadara as the legitimate winner, and the NDC denied submitting Lukman's name.

This Federal High Court INEC candidate replacement order carries substantial implications for electoral integrity and the conduct of political parties and the electoral body itself.

A Federal High Court in Lagos recently mandated the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to substitute a candidate for the 2027 general election, following a dispute over primary election results. On October 20, Justice Akintayo Aluko delivered a judgment that nullified INEC's prior publication of Ibrahim Lukman as the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), whose registration as a political party was set aside by a Federal High Court in June 2026, candidate for the Oshodi/Isolo Federal Constituency I. This ruling came after the court determined that Lukman had not participated in the party's primary election, thereby rendering his candidacy invalid.

The court's decision specifically ordered INEC to remove Lukman's name and particulars, which had been published on August 1, and to immediately replace them with those of Olumuyiwa Owadara. Owadara was identified as the legitimate winner of the NDC's primary election for the constituency, held on May 29. Furthermore, the judgment imposed a cost of N1 million, to be borne jointly by INEC and Lukman, underscoring the gravity of the commission's error in the candidate publication process. This significant ruling highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring the integrity of candidate selection for upcoming elections.

The core of Justice Akintayo Aluko's judgment rested on INEC's non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2026. The court found that INEC had acted in breach of its statutory duties by publishing Lukman's name, despite having monitored the May 29 primary where Olumuyiwa Owadara clearly emerged victorious. Crucially, the court's findings were supported by INEC's own monitoring report, which confirmed that Owadara had secured the highest number of lawful votes cast during the primary. The NDC itself corroborated this, informing the court that no other primary election was conducted for the constituency and that Lukman had not participated in the legitimate exercise.

Justice Aluko explicitly stated that the publication of Lukman's name lacked any lawful basis or justification, given his non-participation in the primary. This action, according to the court, constituted a "brutal violation" and "non-compliance with" Sections 29(1), 32(1), and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026. These sections are fundamental to the electoral process, governing the submission of candidates who emerge from valid primary elections and outlining the commission's responsibilities in monitoring such party primaries. The court also noted the absence of credible evidence suggesting that the NDC had invoked Section 33 of the Act, which provides for the statutory process of changing a candidate, or that the party had conducted any subsequent primary election.

This Federal High Court INEC candidate replacement order carries substantial implications for electoral integrity and the conduct of political parties and the electoral body itself. The judgment in the Olumuyiwa Owadara vs INEC case serves as a stark reminder of the strict adherence required by INEC to the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, particularly concerning the publication of candidates who must emerge from validly conducted primaries. INEC's argument that it merely published names uploaded by political parties was dismissed by Justice Aluko, who found it unsupported by credible evidence. The NDC had, in fact, denied submitting Lukman's name, going so far as to accuse INEC of imposing him on the party, a power the court affirmed the electoral umpire does not possess under the law.

The nullification of the INEC candidate publication and the subsequent order to replace the candidate underscore the judiciary's commitment to upholding due process in candidate selection. This ruling reinforces the principle that political parties must conduct their primaries transparently and in accordance with their own guidelines and the Electoral Act. For INEC, the judgment highlights the necessity of robust verification processes, moving beyond simply accepting party submissions, especially when their own monitoring reports contradict such submissions. The outcome of this Nigeria Democratic Congress candidate dispute, culminating in Justice Akintayo Aluko's election judgment, sets a precedent for ensuring that only candidates who genuinely emerge from a party's internal democratic processes are allowed to contest elections.

This judgment reinforces the strict adherence required by INEC to the Electoral Act 2026 regarding candidate publication, particularly ensuring candidates emerge from valid primaries. Lawyers advising political parties and aspirants must ensure robust compliance with primary election procedures and be prepared to challenge any non-compliant candidate publications by INEC.

Source: Original reporting via The PUNCH