Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, holden at Abuja Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1854/2026 Coram: Hon. Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu, Judge Date of judgment: Thursday 29 October 2026 Certified true copy issued: 30 October 2026 Mode of commencement: Originating Summons dated and filed 13 August 2026 Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant on all questions. No order as to costs.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
Parties
| Applicant | Ethelbert Rochas Anayo Okorocha |
| 1st Respondent | Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) |
| 2nd Respondent | All Progressives Congress (APC) |
| 3rd Respondent | Uzodimma Goodhope Odidika |
Appearances
Parties absent. For the Applicant: O. J. Aboje, with Dr. Lilian Ojima, A. O. Amagwula and E. D. Bela. For the 1st Respondent: M. A. Umar, holding the brief of Dr. Alhassan A. Umar, SAN. For the 2nd Respondent: Robert Emukpoeruo, SAN, with O. G. Egbojaiye. For the 3rd Respondent: Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN and J. O. Asoluka, SAN, with Dr. Obinna Onyia, Julius Mba, Nwamaka Ofoegbu, David Ityonyiman, Ebere Ngwu and E. H. Princewill.
A pre-election matter. The Applicant contended that he won the 2nd Respondent’s senatorial primary for the Imo West Senatorial District, held on 18 May 2026 and monitored by the 1st Respondent, but that the 2nd Respondent forwarded the name of the 3rd Respondent to the 1st Respondent instead, and that the 1st Respondent published the 3rd Respondent as the party’s candidate for the 2027 general election on 1 August 2026.
The Court held that the Applicant won the primary, that the failure to forward his name breached section 29 of the Electoral Act 2026, and that the submission and publication of the 3rd Respondent’s name did not conform with sections 29, 32 and 84 of that Act. It declared the Applicant the lawfully nominated candidate, set aside the relevant part of the 1st Respondent’s publication of 1 August 2026, directed the 1st Respondent to recognise and publish the Applicant, and restrained the 3rd Respondent from parading himself as the party’s candidate.
2. FACTS AS FOUND
2.1 The 2nd Respondent conducted its primary election for the Imo West Senatorial District on Monday 18 May 2026. The parties agreed on the date, and agreed that the 1st Respondent statutorily monitored and observed the election and submitted a report.
2.2 The Applicant’s Exhibit 14, the 2nd Respondent’s Senatorial Primary Election 2026 Declaration of Result Form, showed the Applicant with 150,780 votes against the 3rd Respondent’s 102,158 votes, a margin of 48,622.
2.3 By letter of 20 July 2026, the Applicant’s solicitors applied to the 1st Respondent, which on 22 July 2026 issued a certified true copy of the report of the primary (Exhibits 8, 8A and 10). As at that date the Applicant still appeared in the 1st Respondent’s records as the winner. Exhibit 10 was certified by an officer of the 1st Respondent named in the judgment as Gyang D. Dung.
2.4 The Respondents relied on Exhibits INEC 1, WK 17(c) and UGO 3, in which the 3rd Respondent was recorded as winner with 230,464 votes. Those documents were certified by a different officer of the 1st Respondent, named as A. N. Makwe, on 22 August 2026, 14 August 2026 and 3 September 2026 respectively.
2.5 The Court observed that these were results “in respect of the same election conducted on the same date and certified by the 1st Respondent”.
2.6 On 1 August 2026 the 1st Respondent published the 3rd Respondent as the 2nd Respondent’s candidate.
3. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED
Five questions were posed. Questions 1 to 4 turned on whether, having regard to sections 65(1)(b) and 285(14)(a) and (b) of the Constitution read with sections 29, 32, 33, 84 and 88(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 and the 2nd Respondent’s own guidelines, it was lawful for the 2nd Respondent to submit, and the 1st Respondent to publish, the 3rd Respondent’s name when the Applicant had won the primary; and whether the 1st Respondent is bound by the reports of its own monitoring officers.
Question 5 asked, by reference to section 183 of the Constitution, whether the publication of the 3rd Respondent on 1 August 2026 was not wrongful.
The Court answered questions 1 and 2 in the negative, and questions 3, 4 and 5 in the positive.
4. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
4.1 Limitation under section 285(9) of the Constitution. The decisive preliminary point. The Respondents contended that time ran from the primary of 18 May 2026.
The Court held that the cause of action accrued on 1 August 2026, when the 3rd Respondent’s name was published in place of the Applicant’s, reasoning that awareness of the grievance arises, actually or constructively, “only when another name was substituted by the party to the Independent National Electoral Commission or the list was published by the Commission.” The Court noted that as at 22 July 2026 the 1st Respondent’s own certified records still showed the Applicant as winner.
The arithmetical consequence is decisive. From publication on 1 August to filing on 13 August is 12 days, within the fourteen day limit. From the primary on 18 May to filing is 87 days, which would have been out of time.
4.2 Justiciability. The 3rd Respondent argued that the Court was being asked to choose a candidate for a political party.
Rejected. The Court held that the party’s guidelines provided an appeal process ending with the National Working Committee, that there was no evidence of any appeal to the Primary Election Appeal Committee, and that the Applicant was “asking the Court to put into effect the outcome of the subject primary election held on the 18th of May, 2026” rather than to choose a candidate. The suit was held justiciable.
4.3 Third ground. The Court declined to determine the 3rd Respondent’s third ground at the preliminary stage.
5. REASONING ON THE MERITS
5.1 The sole issue. The Court adopted the 3rd Respondent’s issue one as a summary of the Applicant’s questions 1 to 4: whether the Applicant has established that he won the primary election and was the aspirant entitled to have his name forwarded to the 1st Respondent as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent.
5.2 The contradictory certifications. Two sets of results for one election, both certified by the 1st Respondent. The Court noted that the Applicant’s exhibits bore the initials “DD (PPM)”, which were absent from the Respondents’ exhibits.
5.3 The unsigned result form. Exhibit UGO 1 was required to be signed by both the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Imo State and the Head of Department (Elections and Party Monitoring), Imo State, but was signed by only one. In Exhibit R7 both the Resident Electoral Commissioner (Chukwuemeka C. Ibeziako, Esq., FCIArb) and the Head of Department (Dr. Nneka Ogochukwu Eluogu) had signed.
The Court held that a document required to be signed by two persons but signed by one “presents the document as not signed at all”, so that no probative value could be ascribed to it, citing Dikko v. NSITF Mgt. Board (2025) 14 NWLR (Pt. 2004) 129.
5.4 Internal inconsistency in the Respondents’ own figures. On Exhibit WK-4, the declared scores were 230,464 for the 3rd Respondent and 1,098 for the Applicant. On adding the ward and local government sheets exhibited (Ideato, Ideato South, Isu, Njaba, Nkwere, Nwangele, Oguta, Oru and Oru West), the totals came to 230,164 and 1,126 respectively.
The declared figure therefore overstated the 3rd Respondent’s score by 300 votes. The Court also found that in Okwa-Owere Ward figures were attributed without any ward result sheet being presented, with the same defect in Ideato North, Ideato South and Ogboiko Ward II.
5.5 Common authorship. The Court found that the ward sheets purporting to come from twelve different local government areas appeared “made or written by one and the same person and signed by the same person.”
5.6 The forgery allegation. The Respondents deposed that the Applicant’s exhibits were forged. The Court rejected this, observing that the officer who deposed that the stamp and signature on Exhibits 8, 8A, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 were not his “failed to show his own stamp to enable the Court to compare both stamps”, and that his depositions were “an afterthought calculated to mislead the Court.” On examination, the stamps bore the same characteristics as the contested ones.
5.7 The volte face. The Court recorded that the 1st Respondent, acting under its constitutional mandate and section 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 to monitor party primaries, together with the 2nd Respondent and the Chairman and Secretary of the 2nd Respondent’s Primary Election Committee, “all reported that the Applicant won the primary election only to turn around to depose that it was the 3rd Respondent that won the primary.”
“This is an afterthought which cannot be allowed to stand.”
5.8 Discharge of burden. The Applicant was held to have discharged the burden under section 133(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, citing Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) LPELR-1538 (SC).
5.9 The ratio on section 29.
“The 2nd Respondent duly conducted its primary election for Imo West Senatorial Seat. The primary election was won by the Applicant but in a curious manner, Applicant’s name was not forwarded to the 1st Respondent for publication. This is breach of section 29 of the Electoral Act, 2026 that enjoins every political party, not later than 120 days before the date appointed for a general election under the Act, submit to the 1st Respondent, in the prescribed Forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who shall have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.“
“In refusing or neglecting to forward the name of the Applicant to the 1st Respondent and the consequent publication of the 3rd Respondent’s name is a breach [of] section 29 of the Electoral Act, 2026.”
5.10 No party discretion after a valid primary. Applying Magaji v. Lado (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1905) 435, the Court held:
“After a primary election has been held by a political party for the nomination of its candidate to contest an election, all that is left for the party to [do is] forward the name of the successful aspirant to INEC. The political party does not have a discretion as to whether to cancel the primary election or schedule a rerun or do any other thing as long as the primary election was validly held in accordance with the extant laws as well as the Constitution and Guidelines of the party.”
5.11 When nomination occurs. The Court noted the Supreme Court’s holding that nomination takes place when the name of the winner of the primary is submitted to INEC, and that until this is done a person cannot rightfully claim to be the candidate of the party, by reference to section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, now section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.
5.12 The Court further held that Sani v. APC (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1912) 109 supported the Applicant.
6. ORDERS MADE
1. A declaration that, by virtue of sections 65(1)(b) and 285(14)(a) and (b) of the Constitution read with sections 29, 32, 33, 84 and 88(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 and the 2nd Respondent’s guidelines, it is unlawful for the 2nd Respondent to forward and for the 1st Respondent to publish, as done on 1 August 2026, the name of the 3rd Respondent as the candidate the 2nd Respondent proposes to sponsor for the 2027 general election for Imo West Senatorial District, when it was the Applicant and not the 3rd Respondent who won the primary of 18 May 2026.
2. A declaration that it is unconstitutional and unlawful for the 1st Respondent to receive, accept, publish and recognise the 3rd Respondent as that candidate.
3. A declaration that the Applicant, being the winner of the primary of 18 May 2026 conducted by the 2nd Respondent and monitored, observed and recorded by the 1st Respondent, is the person lawfully entitled to have his name forwarded to the 1st Respondent and consequently recognised and published as the duly nominated candidate.
4. A declaration that the 1st Respondent is bound by the reports of its own officers and agents who monitored, observed and recorded the primary of 18 May 2026, which reports indicated that the Applicant emerged as winner.
5. A declaration that, having regard to section 183 of the Constitution, the publication of the 3rd Respondent by the 1st Respondent on 1 August 2026 as the winner of the primary and as the 2nd Respondent’s nominated candidate is wrongful.
6. A declaration that the Applicant is the lawfully nominated candidate of the 2nd Respondent to contest the 2027 general election to the Senate from the Imo West Senatorial District, having scored the highest votes at the primary of Monday 18 May 2026.
7. An order setting aside and making null, void and of no effect that aspect of the publication of 1 August 2026 which declared the 3rd Respondent as the person who won the highest votes in the primary.
8. An order directing the 1st Respondent to recognise and publish the Applicant as the duly nominated candidate of the 2nd Respondent for the 2027 general election to the Senate from the Imo West Senatorial District.
9. An order prohibiting the 3rd Respondent, whether by himself or through the 2nd Respondent or anyone howsoever named, from parading himself as the nominated candidate of the 2nd Respondent for that seat.
10. No order as to costs.
7. AUTHORITIES
Cases cited in the judgment
- Magaji v. Lado (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1905) 435
- Sani v. APC (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1912) 109
- Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) LPELR-1538 (SC)
- Dikko v. NSITF Mgt. Board (2025) 14 NWLR (Pt. 2004) 129
- An unnamed Supreme Court decision on the point that nomination occurs on submission of the winner’s name to INEC, referred to in the passage at page 51 of the judgment
Statutes considered
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), sections 65(1)(b), 183, 285(9), 285(14)(a) and (b)
- Electoral Act 2026, sections 29, 29(1), 32, 33, 84, 84(1), 88(2)
- Evidence Act 2011, section 133(1)
- Rules, Regulations and Guidelines of the All Progressives Congress regulating its national primary elections
8. SIGNIFICANCE AND POINTS FOR PRACTITIONERS
8.1 The accrual point is the most useful part of the judgment. The holding that time under section 285(9) runs from substitution or publication, not from the primary, is what kept this suit alive. Had time run from 18 May, the Applicant would have been 73 days out of time.
The reasoning is that a candidate who won a primary has no grievance until somebody else’s name appears, and that his awareness arises “actually or constructively, only when another name was substituted by the party to the Independent National Electoral Commission or the list was published by the Commission.”
Practitioners should note the qualification the Court attached: what constitutes the event complained of “would differ from case to case”, while section 285(9) applies generally. The judgment does not lay down that publication is always the accrual date. It holds that it was on these facts, where INEC’s own certified record still showed the Applicant as winner three weeks before publication.
8.2 The evidential value of an INEC certified true copy obtained early. The Applicant wrote on 20 July 2026 and obtained certified copies on 22 July 2026, before the publication he complains of. That document, showing him as winner in INEC’s own records, did more work in this judgment than anything else.
The practical lesson is immediate: an aspirant who believes he has won a primary should obtain the certified monitoring report from the Commission at once, before any list is submitted or published, and should not wait to see what the party does.
8.3 INEC certified two contradictory results for the same primary, and the judgment records it with an exclamation mark. One officer certified on 22 July 2026 a record showing the Applicant as winner. Another officer certified, on three dates in August and September 2026, records showing the 3rd Respondent as winner with 230,464 votes.
The same Commission therefore issued certified true copies supporting both sides of the same dispute. That is a matter going beyond this case and beyond this seat.
8.4 The forty per cent of the reasoning that is arithmetic. The Court did not resolve the conflict by preferring one witness to another. It opened the exhibits and added them up.
The declared figure for the 3rd Respondent was 230,464; the ward and local government sheets came to 230,164, an overstatement of 300 votes. Votes were attributed in Okwa-Owere Ward with no ward result sheet in the bundle, and the same in Ideato North, Ideato South and Ogboiko Ward II. Sheets purporting to come from twelve local government areas appeared to be in one hand.
Where a result is challenged, the summation is the strongest evidence available and it is in the respondent’s own documents. The point is transferable to any election petition.
8.5 The evidential rule on documents requiring two signatures. Applying Dikko v. NSITF Mgt. Board, a document required to be executed by two officers but executed by one is treated as unsigned, and attracts no probative value. That rule disposed of a central respondent exhibit here and is of general application to statutory forms.
8.6 The rule in Magaji v. Lado, restated. After a valid primary, a party has no discretion to cancel it, order a rerun, or substitute. Its remaining function is ministerial: forward the winner’s name. A party which wishes to displace a primary result must do so through its own appeal machinery, and the absence of any appeal to the Primary Election Appeal Committee was material to the justiciability ruling here.
8.7 Section 29 as the operative breach. The judgment’s ratio is narrow and clean: the Act requires the list submitted not later than 120 days before the general election to consist of candidates “who shall have emerged from valid primaries”. A party which submits a name that did not emerge from the primary breaches section 29, and a publication founded on that submission cannot stand.
8.8 The limits of the judgment. It is a first instance decision of the Federal High Court and is subject to appeal. Under section 285(11) of the Constitution an appeal in a pre-election matter must be filed within 60 days of the decision, which on this judgment expires on or about 28 December 2026. The 180 day period under section 285(10) ran from filing on 13 August 2026 and would have expired on 9 February 2027; the judgment was delivered 77 days into that period, with 103 days to spare.
8.9 Section 183. Question 5 and declaration 5 are expressed by reference to section 183 of the Constitution. That provision concerns the holding of other executive office or paid employment by a Governor, and its relevance to the publication of a senatorial candidate is not developed in the passages examined. Practitioners relying on this judgment should read the whole of the Court’s treatment of question 5 before citing declaration 5, and should satisfy themselves that the section reference is as intended.
[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
