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.
Justice Akintayo Aluko, in a judgment delivered on October 20, nullified INEC’s publication of Lukman’s name, ruling that he did not participate in the party’s primary election held on May 29, where Owadara emerged winner.
The court directed INEC to immediately publish Owadara’s name and particulars as the party’s duly nominated candidate. It also awarded N1 million in costs against the electoral commission and Lukman.
Justice Aluko based his decision partly on INEC’s monitoring report, which indicated that Owadara “scored the highest number of lawful votes cast” during the primary.
The NDC had told the court that it conducted no other primary election for the constituency and that Lukman did not participate in the exercise.
Owadara also informed the court that he had completed the required nomination forms, which were submitted to INEC.
Despite these submissions, the commission published Lukman’s name on August 1, leaving Owadara off the list of candidates.
INEC had argued that it published the names uploaded to its platform by political parties, including the NDC. However, Justice Aluko rejected the explanation, describing it as unsupported 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, arguing that the commission had no legal authority to do so.
Justice Aluko held that INEC had no lawful basis for publishing Lukman as the party’s candidate because he did not participate in the primary.
He ruled that the commission’s action violated Sections 29(1), 32(1) and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which address the submission of candidates nominated through party primaries and the monitoring of such exercises.
The judge further observed that there was no credible evidence that the NDC had initiated a candidate-substitution process 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,” he said.
Justice Aluko concluded that Owadara had established his case with credible evidence, adding that the primary election was conducted in accordance with the party’s guidelines, constitution and the Electoral Act.
He described INEC’s publication of Lukman’s name as being in breach of the party’s rules and relevant electoral provisions.
In reaching the decision, the judge 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.
Court Rejects Lukman’s Objection to Service
The court also dismissed Lukman’s challenge to its jurisdiction, in which he argued that he was not properly served with the originating summons.
Lukman claimed he was in London when service was purportedly effected and denied that the WhatsApp number and email address used belonged to him.
Justice Aluko noted that the court had authorised substituted service on August 19 after a bailiff failed to serve him personally. According to the bailiff’s affidavit, the court processes were subsequently served through WhatsApp on August 24.
The judge found that the number used for service was the same one Lukman supplied to INEC in his Form EC9, an affidavit of personal particulars sworn to on June 27 and tendered by Owadara.
The court also considered WhatsApp exchanges between the lawyers representing both parties, which it said showed that the court processes were exchanged on August 27, 28 and 31.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Saleh v. Abah, Justice Aluko held that service on a party’s counsel who did not deny receiving the processes was valid.
He further observed that Lukman filed no counter-affidavit or defence to the originating summons and had therefore failed to controvert Owadara’s claims.
Lawyers React to Judgment
Owadara’s legal team was led by Festus Ogun, Managing Partner of FOLEGAL, alongside Tofunmi Adetunji and Omobola Olayanju.
Reacting to the judgment, Ogun said the ruling reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law.
He said his team had maintained that the publication of a candidate who did not participate in the recognised primary was unlawful.
“The last-minute announcement of an individual who never participated in the recognised primary election as a candidate is a stain on the process and institutions manning the election and a grave injustice against the legitimate winner, which should not be allowed to stand,” Ogun said.
He added: “We are happy the court agreed with us and ordered INEC to substitute the name for our client. This is a victory for democracy.”
Meanwhile, the NDC, through its counsel, Ikechukwu Onodi, argued that INEC lacked the power to substitute a validly nominated candidate, maintaining that candidate substitution was an internal party matter governed by statutory conditions.
INEC’s counsel, Segun Bello, argued that determining whom a political party sponsors was not the commission’s responsibility and that the electoral umpire was required to remain neutral.
On October 23, FOLEGAL wrote to the INEC National Chairman, enclosing a certified true copy of the judgment and requesting immediate compliance with the court’s orders.
