A Federal High Court in Lagos has nullified the Independent National Electoral Commission’s publication of Ibrahim Lukman as the Nigeria Democratic Congress candidate for Oshodi/Isolo Federal Constituency I in the 2027 general election.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
In a judgment delivered on October 20, Justice Akintayo Aluko ruled that Lukman did not participate in the party’s primary election and held that INEC acted in breach of the Electoral Act 2026 by publishing Lukman’s name despite monitoring the May 29 primary at which Olumuyiwa Owadara emerged as the winner.
The court subsequently ordered the commission to publish the name of the winner, Owadara.
The court set aside INEC’s August 1 publication of Lukman as the party’s candidate and ordered the commission to immediately publish Owadara’s name and particulars. It also awarded ₦1m in costs against INEC and Lukman.
The judgment turned on INEC’s own monitoring report, which the court said showed that Owadara “scored the highest number of lawful votes cast” at the primary.
The NDC also told the court that it conducted no other primary for the constituency and that Lukman did not participate in the exercise.
Despite this, INEC published Lukman’s name and particulars as the party’s candidate, leaving Owadara off the list.
Owadara told the court that he had completed his nomination forms and had them submitted to the commission.
INEC argued that it published the names uploaded to its platform by political parties, including the NDC. Justice Aluko rejected that explanation, saying 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 further recorded that the NDC denied sending Lukman’s name to INEC and accused the commission of imposing him on the party, a power it said the electoral umpire did not possess under the law.
Justice Aluko held that because Lukman had not participated in the primary, INEC had no lawful basis to publish him as the party’s candidate.
“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,” the judge said.
He ruled that the publication amounted to “non-compliance with and brutal violation of” Sections 29(1), 32(1) and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which govern the submission of candidates emerging from valid primaries and the commission’s monitoring of party primaries.
The court also found no credible evidence that the NDC had invoked the statutory process for changing its candidate under Section 33 of the Act or conducted another primary.
“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,” Justice Aluko held.
He concluded that Owadara had established his case with credible evidence, adding that the primary was conducted in accordance with the party’s guidelines and constitution and the Electoral Act.
“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 said.
The judge added that INEC’s publication of Lukman’s name “is in violent breach of the Guidelines, the Constitution of the 2nd Defendant and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.”
In reaching his decision, Justice Aluko relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Igboke v. Chukwu (2023), which set aside INEC’s publication of a candidate who had not won the relevant party primary.
Lukman had challenged the court’s jurisdiction, asking that the suit be struck out on the grounds that he was not properly served with the originating summons. He claimed he was in London when service was purportedly effected and denied that the WhatsApp number and email address used belonged to him.
The court dismissed the objection, noting that it had authorised substituted service on August 19 after the bailiff failed to serve Lukman personally. The bailiff’s affidavit stated that the processes were subsequently served through WhatsApp on August 24.
Justice Aluko 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.
“There is, however, 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 for Owadara and Lukman, which it said showed that court processes were exchanged on August 27, 28 and 31.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Saleh v. Abah, the judge held that service on a party’s counsel who did not deny receiving the processes was valid.
The judge further noted that Lukman filed no counter-affidavit or defence to the originating summons and had therefore “failed to controvert or deny the claims and case of the Plaintiff”.
Owadara’s legal team was led by Festus Ogun, Managing Partner of FOLEGAL, with Tofunmi Adetunji and Omobola Olayanju. Ogun said the judgment had affirmed the judiciary’s role in upholding the law.
“We are most relieved that the court has demonstrated once again that it remains an impartial institution of trust which dispenses justice without fear or favour,” he said.
He said the team had been confident in its legal argument against the publication of a candidate who did not participate in the recognised primary.
“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.
“We are happy the court agreed with us and ordered INEC to substitute the name for our client. This is a victory for democracy.”
The NDC, through its counsel, Ikechukwu Onodi, argued that INEC lacked the power to substitute a validly nominated candidate, maintaining that substitution was an internal party matter subject to statutory conditions.
He also argued that the commission’s role in primaries was limited to monitoring the exercise and seeking clarification where necessary.
INEC’s counsel, Segun Bello, argued that determining whom a political party sponsors was not the commission’s responsibility and that INEC 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 orders.
“We respectfully anticipate your earnest compliance with the said Orders of the Court,” the letter signed by Ogun stated.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
