A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to replace Ibrahim Lukman with 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 publication of Lukman as the party’s candidate, ruling that he did not participate in the primary election monitored by the commission on May 29, 2026.
In the judgment delivered on October 20, the court held that Owadara emerged winner of the primary after scoring the highest number of lawful votes cast.
Justice Aluko consequently directed INEC to immediately publish Owadara’s name and particulars as the party’s candidate, setting aside the commission’s August 1 publication of Lukman.
The court also awarded N1m in costs against INEC and Lukman.
The suit followed INEC’s decision to list Lukman as the NDC candidate despite the party’s position that he neither participated in the recognised primary nor emerged through any subsequent primary election.
Owadara had approached the court, arguing that he won the party’s primary and completed the necessary nomination requirements but was excluded from INEC’s published list of candidates.
In its defence, INEC maintained that it published the names submitted through its platform by political parties, including the NDC.
However, Justice Aluko rejected the commission’s explanation, holding that it was not supported by credible evidence.
The judge noted that the NDC denied submitting Lukman’s name and accused INEC of imposing him on the party, stressing that the commission lacked the legal authority to determine a party’s candidate outside the provisions of the law.
Justice Aluko held that the publication of Lukman’s name violated Sections 29(1), 32(1) and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which regulate the submission of candidates and the conduct and monitoring of party primaries.
The court further found no credible evidence that the NDC had invoked the statutory procedure for changing 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 held.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Igboke v. Chukwu (2023), Justice Aluko reaffirmed that a candidate who did not emerge from the relevant party primary could not lawfully be recognised by INEC.
The court also dismissed Lukman’s objection to its jurisdiction.
Lukman had argued that he was not properly served with the court processes, claiming that he was in London when service was purportedly effected and disputing the ownership of the WhatsApp number and email address used.
The judge, however, found that the WhatsApp number used for service matched the number Lukman supplied to INEC in his Form EC9, an affidavit of personal particulars sworn to on June 27.
The court also considered WhatsApp exchanges between the lawyers representing both sides, which indicated that the court processes had been exchanged on August 27, 28 and 31.
Justice Aluko further noted that Lukman did not file a counter-affidavit or defence to challenge Owadara’s claims.
Owadara’s legal team was led by Festus Ogun, Managing Partner of FOLEGAL, alongside Tofunmi Adetunji and Omobola Olayanju.
Reacting to the judgment, Ogun described the decision as a victory for democracy and the rule of law, expressing satisfaction that the court had upheld the rights of the recognised primary winner.
He faulted the last-minute emergence of a candidate who did not participate in the recognised primary, describing such a development as an injustice to the legitimate winner and a threat to the credibility of the electoral process.
Meanwhile, the NDC, through its counsel, Ikechukwu Onodi, had argued that INEC lacked the authority to substitute a duly nominated candidate, maintaining that candidate substitution was an internal party matter governed by statutory requirements.
INEC’s counsel, Segun Bello, also argued that determining whom a political party sponsors was not the commission’s responsibility and that the electoral umpire was required to remain neutral.
Following the judgment, FOLEGAL, in a letter dated October 23, forwarded a certified true copy of the decision to the INEC National Chairman and requested immediate compliance with the court’s orders
