Court sacks Lukman, orders INEC to recognise Owadara as NDC candidate

The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to publish the name and particulars of Olumuyiwa Owadara as the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate for Oshodi/Isolo Federal Constituency I in the 2027 general election.

The court, presided over by Justice Akintayo Aluko, nullified INEC’s earlier recognition of Ibrahim Alabi Lukman as the party’s candidate, set aside the commission’s August 1 publication of his name and awarded N1 million in costs against INEC and Lukman.

In the judgment delivered on October 20, the judge held that Owadara won the NDC primary election conducted on May 29 and monitored by INEC, noting that the commission had no lawful basis to recognise Lukman, who did not participate in the exercise.

Justice Aluko relied on INEC’s monitoring report, which stated that Owadara “scored the highest number of lawful votes cast” during the primary.

The court noted that the NDC maintained it did not conduct any other primary election for the constituency and that Lukman did not participate in the recognised exercise.

Despite this, INEC published Lukman’s name and particulars as the party’s candidate, leaving Owadara off its list, although Owadara said he had completed and submitted the required nomination forms.

In its defence, INEC argued that it published the names uploaded to its platform by political parties, including the NDC.

However, Justice Aluko rejected the explanation, ruling that it was not supported by credible evidence.

“I am of the view that the evidence of the 1st Defendant that the names it published are the names uploaded on its platform by political parties including the 2nd Defendant is not supported or corroborated by any credible evidence,” the judge held.

The court also noted that the NDC denied submitting Lukman’s name and accused INEC of imposing him on the party.

Justice Aluko stressed that the commission lacked the authority to determine a party’s candidate outside the provisions of the law.

“The Commission has no lawful basis or justification to publish the name and particulars of the 3rd Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the said election,” he said.

The judge held that the publication violated Sections 29(1), 32(1) and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which govern the submission of candidates emerging from party primaries and INEC’s monitoring of such exercises.

He added that there was no credible evidence that the NDC had taken steps to change its candidate under Section 33 of the Act or conducted another primary election.

“There is no credible evidence before the court to suggest that the 2nd Defendant as a political party took steps to change its candidate in line with the provision of section 33 of the Electoral Act or that another primary election was held by the 2nd Defendant,” the judge said.

Justice Aluko ruled that Owadara had established his case with credible evidence, finding that the primary election was conducted in accordance with the party’s guidelines, constitution and the Electoral Act.

ALSO READ: BREAKING: Court sacks Uzodinma as APC senatorial candidate for Imo West

“It is my humble but firm conviction that the Plaintiff has established by credible evidence that the primary election was conducted in consonance with the Guidelines, Constitution of the 2nd Defendant and the Electoral Act and that the Plaintiff emerged the winner,” he held.

The court further ruled that INEC’s publication of Lukman’s name breached the NDC’s guidelines and constitution, as well as relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.

In reaching the decision, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Igboke v. Chukwu (2023), which set aside INEC’s publication of a candidate who had not won the relevant party primary.

The court also dismissed Lukman’s objection to its jurisdiction, which was based on his claim that he had not been properly served with the originating summons.

Lukman had argued that he was in London when service was purportedly effected and denied ownership of the WhatsApp number and email address used to serve the court processes.

However, the court noted that it had authorised substituted service on August 19 after the bailiff failed to serve him personally. According to the bailiff’s affidavit, the processes were subsequently served through WhatsApp on August 24.

Justice Aluko found that the telephone number used for the service was the same number Lukman supplied to INEC in his Form EC9, an affidavit of personal particulars sworn to on June 27 and tendered by Owadara.

“There is however a credible evidence before the court to demonstrate that the 3rd Defendant is not truthful after all,” the judge said.

The court also considered WhatsApp exchanges between the lawyers representing Owadara and Lukman, which showed that court processes were exchanged on August 27, 28 and 31.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Saleh v. Abah, Justice Aluko held that service on a party’s counsel who did not deny receiving the processes was valid.

The judge further noted that Lukman did not file a counter-affidavit or defence to the originating summons and had therefore failed to controvert Owadara’s claims.

Reacting to the judgment, Owadara’s counsel, Festus Ogun, managing partner of FOLEGAL, said the ruling reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law.

Ogun said his legal team was relieved that the court had demonstrated its commitment to dispensing justice without fear or favour.

He described INEC’s publication of the name of a candidate who did not participate in the recognised primary as an injustice to the legitimate winner and a stain on the electoral process.

“We are happy the court agreed with us and ordered INEC to substitute the name for our client. This is a victory for democracy,” he said.

The NDC, through its counsel, Ikechukwu Onodi, had argued that INEC lacked the power to substitute a validly nominated candidate, maintaining that candidate substitution was an internal party matter subject to statutory conditions.

Onodi also submitted that INEC’s role in party primaries was limited to monitoring the exercise and seeking clarification where necessary.

INEC’s counsel, Segun Bello, argued that determining the candidate sponsored by a political party was not the commission’s responsibility and that it was required to remain neutral.

In a further development, FOLEGAL, in a letter dated October 23, forwarded a certified true copy of the judgment to INEC’s national chairman and requested immediate compliance with the court’s orders.

“We respectfully anticipate your earnest compliance with the said Orders of the Court,” the letter signed by Ogun stated.