The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, November 13, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to reinstate the Peoples Democratic Party governorship candidate in Ogun State, Ladi Adebutu, on its list of candidates for the 2027 governorship election within 24 hours.
Justice Peter Lifu, in a judgment, held that INEC had no powers to unilaterally remove the name of a validly nominated candidate by a political party.
Justice Lifu held that the exclusion of Adebutu’s name was unconstitutional, unlawful and of no effect.
The judge, who held that Adebutu’s right to fair hearing was breached, stated that the power to disqualify a candidate after the name had been forwarded to the commission resides with the Federal High Court or state’s high court.
He had earlier dismissed INEC’s preliminary objection seeking the dismissal of the suit for being defective and incompetent.
The PDP and Adebutu had, on October 22, filed the suit following the removal of Adebutu’s name from the list of contestants of the governorship seat in the state.
The plaintiffs sued INEC as sole defendant in the suit and sought six questions for determination.
They sought an order setting aside the commission’s decision to omit, remove or refuse to publish Adebutu’s name in the final list of candidates published on October 10 for denial of fair hearing and violation of the provisions of Section 29 and Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, among others.
But INEC, in its counter affidavit, told the court that Adebutu’s name was not found in the register of members the PDP earlier submitted to it.
It told the court that it found only the name of the PDP’s deputy governorship candidate in the state, Kolapo Lateefat Oyeyemi, in the register.
The commission, which also filed a preliminary objection, asked the court to dismiss the suit.
The judge said, “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 counsel in the law firm,” he said.
He said the court perused the originating summons and considered it competent.
Justice Lifu, therefore, dismissed INEC’s preliminary objection.
While reading the substantive suit, the judge observed that the second plaintiff (Adebutu) stated that he sought the office of the Governor of Ogun State in 2019 and he was the 2023 governorship candidate.
He further observed that Adebutu participated in the primary for the 2027 poll, and that on August 29, the party published his name, and there was no suit challenging his nomination.
Justice Lifu noted that after INEC had removed Adebutu’s name as party’s candidate, the PDP and its national secretary, on October 14, wrote the commission to reverse the action but to no avail.
The judge noted that INEC, in its response, claimed that it was bound to obey the provisions of the Electoral Act, asking the court to dismiss the suit.
He observed that the plaintiffs and the defendant filed their written statements on oath where they called witnesses to give evidence in the case.
Justice Lifu, in reaching his decision, divided the issues for determination into four to include “whether the plaintiffs’ right to fair hearing was breached; whether INEC has the power to unilaterally disqualify Adebutu, whether the defendant can remove the name of the candidate and whether Adebutu’s name is in the flash drive.”
On issue one, the judge held that the right to fair hearing was fundamental in Nigeria’s jurisprudence.
“Fair hearing 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 present his side,” the court said.
According to him, when a right is vested in a person, such right cannot be taken away without hearing from the person.
Justice Lifu, therefore, held that Adebutu was not accorded the right to be heard before INEC took the decision.
He ruled that Adebutu’s right to fair hearing had been breached by the commission.
On the second issue, the judge said the PDP contended that Adebutu was duly nominated by the party and his name forwarded to INEC.
“I have taken a cursory look at the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not give the defendant 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,” he said.
The judge held that the commission lacked the power to disqualify any candidate, and that even if INEC believed that the name of a candidate was omitted, the proper thing to do is to approach the court that has the power to finally remove the name.
He said 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.
The judge noted that the primary election was held on May 24, where Adebutu emerged winner and was nominated, and INEC monitored the poll 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.
Justice Lifu, therefore, resolved the second issue against INEC.
On issue three, the judge said after Adebutu was declared the winner of the PDP governorship primary on May 24, neither INEC nor any member of the party raised any complaint against his emergence.
He said even though no person filed any suit to challenge Adebutu 14 days after the conduct of the poll, it was baffling that INEC waited until August to remove Adebutu’s name.
Justice Lifu, who described INEC’s action as an afterthought, said the commission, without approaching a court, waited until after four months to remove Adebutu’s name from its final list.
“This court has established that INEC lacks the power to disqualify any candidate. Therefore, if this is not resolved, there will be a day that the defendant (INEC) will disqualify a candidate, a day to an election,” he said.
The judge, who said such act must not be allowed, said it would be an absurdity.
“I, therefore, resolve this issue in favour of the plaintiffs,” the judge held.
On issue four, Justice Lifu said INEC should have raised the matter if Adebutu did not participate in the primary in its monitoring report.
According to him, the action of the defendant (INEC) makes it plausible that the name of the 2nd plaintiff (Adebutu) was contained in the list submitted to it and that his membership 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 1st defence witness (DW-1).
