AfriPulse
May 31 (THEWILL) — Pending the final judgement of the courts on the appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) against a Federal High Court judgement that set aside its timetable for the 2027 general election, aspirants who have defected from their political parties under the existing judgement could find their aspirations go up in smoke during the current election cycle.
This is because the lower court opened the window for the aspirants and they took it. The appellate court could close it and leave the nominees and their new parties without a candidate for the position in the upcoming general election.
“Well, the situation we have now is based on the law of the land. The current situation is that the defectors acted according to the law. There is no stay of execution of the High Court judgement that the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) sought at the Appeal Court last week,” the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigeria Democratic Party (NDC), Mr Osa Director told THEWILL at the weekend, adding, “Of course the defectors know there could be a counter-judgement by a higher court. For now, however, they have acted according to the law.”
NDC is a major beneficiary of the defections alongside the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Social Democratic Party (SDP), and the Peoples Redemption Party, PRP.
The existing law, which Director referred to, is the judgement by Justice Muhammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered on May 20, 2026. Justice Umar voided INEC’s directive requiring political parties to submit their membership registers and databases by May 10 as part of the conditions for participation in the 2027 polls.
The suit was instituted by the Youth Party, which challenged the legality of the commission’s directive and other timelines contained in INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general elections.
In the judgment, Justice Umar held that INEC lacked the statutory powers to alter, abridge, or reduce timelines already stipulated under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to the submission of candidates’ particulars and party records.
The court ruled that political parties are only required by law to submit the particulars of candidates not later than 120 days before an election and that INEC could not impose shorter timelines outside the provisions of the Electoral Act.
In another judgment filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC, Justice James Omotosho declared that INEC is constitutionally empowered to issue and change election timetables and schedules of activities for elections. Justice Omotosho further ruled that INEC derives the powers to issue and alter election timetables from both the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), particularly Section 285(14).
The judge, however, faulted aspects of INEC’s revised timetable dealing with candidate substitution and submission deadlines. He noted that Section 31 of the Electoral Act allows political parties to communicate the withdrawal of candidates to INEC not later than 90 days before an election.
Dissatisfied with Justice Umar’s verdict, INEC, through its counsel, Alex Izinyon, filed a notice of appeal dated May 25, 2026, urging the appellate court to overturn the judgment in its entirety. The electoral commission also filed a motion seeking a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
The commission raised nine grounds of appeal and argued that the trial court failed to determine its objection challenging the jurisdiction of the suit.
INEC contended that the matter brought before the Federal High Court was hypothetical, speculative, and academic, insisting that the failure of the lower court to address the jurisdictional issue amounted to a denial of fair hearing.
The commission also faulted the trial court’s interpretation of Sections 29(1), 82, and 84 of the Electoral Act 2026.
According to INEC, the lower court erred when it held that political parties were only required to notify the commission 21 days before conducting primaries, congresses, or conventions, and that the commission lacked authority to impose additional timelines outside those expressly prescribed by the Electoral Act.
The electoral body further argued that the judgment was against the weight of evidence presented before the court and prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision.
THE DEFECTIONS AND DEFECTORS
Acting on Justice Umar’s judgment, the defections appear to be a one–way street: From the governing All Progressives Congress (APC) to the ADC, the SDP, the NDC, PDP and the PRP.
Instructively, the defectors moved into their new parties and secured tickets before the contentious May 30, 2026, electoral deadline that many political parties, on their own, had scheduled to finish their primaries prior to the court judgement. Without exception, all the defectors participated in their parties’ primaries, lost, and defected. Before Justice Umar’s judgement, this was illegal.
The illegality, according to the High Court Judge is found in Section 77, subsections 2-6 of the Electoral Act, dealing with membership register and its use to prove members who can participate in primaries and be fielded for elections.
Section (2) states that: A party shall maintain a digital register of its members containing the name, sex, date of birth, address, state, local government, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number and photograph in both hard and soft copies.
(3) Upon registration, a membership card shall be issued to members.
(4) Each political party shall make such a register available to the commission not later than 21 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or conventions.
(5) Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.
(6) A political party shall not use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission.
(7) A party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for that election.
Following Justice Umar’s judgement, which has been widely interpreted as creating room for fresh defections and political realignments across parties by nullifying restrictive timelines imposed by the electoral commission, aggrieved members who lost in their party’s primaries defected to rival parties to field their candidacy.
In Delta State, a former Deputy President of the Senate, Ovie Omo-Agege lost in the All Progressives Congress primary for the Delta Central Senatorial District to incumbent Senator Ede Dafinone. Omo-Agege has defected to the NDC and will be the party’s flagbearer for that election after he was granted a waiver by the NDC leadership to participate in the primary.
Former Minister of Communication and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami also dumped the APC for the PDP after rejecting the consensus arrangement engineered by Gombe Governor, Inuwa Yahaya to facilitate the emergence of his preferred choice as his successor, Jamilu Gwamma.
In Abia State, a former, two-time Senator Nkechi Nwaogu resigned from the APC after losing in the party’s primary election to Emeka Atuma. As of press time, she was still holding talks with the leadership of the NDC.
“In my zone, there was no election. I know I have an advantage in my zone. When I saw the shenanigans of them trying to destroy the party we built, I knew they were losing touch,” she reportedly said, adding that, “I can confirm that I have left the party.”
In Jigawa State, the APC suffered defections in the wake of its National Assembly primaries, with politicians choosing to defect to the ADC. For instance, two-term Senator Sabo Muhammad Nakudu (Jigawa South-West) dumped the party for the ADC as a result of his grievances stemming from the primary.
A political earthquake hit Nasarawa State chapter of the APC after the governorship primary in which a former Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar Adamu lost to Senator Aliyu Ahmed Wadada, an anointed candidate of Governor Abdullahi Sule. Reacting swiftly to what he claimed was “the disgraceful charade that masqueraded as the APC Governorship Primary Election held on May 21, 2026,” Adamu and his loyalists defected in droves to the SDP.
Adamu’s loyalists who defected with him include the Director-General of his campaign organisation and a member of the APC, Barr. Musa Hussein, a former member of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly and Dr. Ibrahim Bala Moskolo. Others who followed the ex-IGP in his footsteps include a former Commissioner for Lands and Urban Development under Governor Abdullahi Sule’s administration, Mohammed Tanimu Sarki, the incumbent member of the State Assembly representing Keana constituency, Mohammed Adamu Omadefu, his Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs colleague, Yusufu Turaki and Chairman of Contact and Mobilization for the campaign team, Nathaniel Isa.
In the Bauchi state, Senator Sumaila Kaila Dahiru, (Bauchi North), resigned from the APC after losing his return ticket bid in the primary and defected to the PRP. His counterpart from Bauchi South district, Shehu Baba Umar, who lost in his governorship aspiration resigned from APC and joined the PDP. Citing violation of the party’s electoral guidelines and abuse of the Constitution, a member of the House of Representatives, Rabiu Bala Kashiri dumped APC after failing to secure a return ticket. A House of Representative member, Shehu Aliyu Musa who contested and lost for Bauchi South senatorial ticket resigned from APC. Majority Leader of the Assembly and aspirant for Katagun Federal Constituency, Tijjani Mohammed Aliyu resigned from APC after losing his bid and defected to PRP.
REACTIONS
Justifying Senator Omo-Agege’s exit from the APC, his spokesman, Mr Sunny Areh told THEWILL that they have a one-hundred percent chance of succeeding with the defection of the former Deputy President of the Senate, even up to the Supreme Court where he said they were ready to pursue the case should INEC get a reprieve at the Appeal Court.
“We have a one-hundred percent chance of succeeding because that case will be tried out in Court up to the Supreme Court if INEC pursues it further. If the electoral commission succeeds at the Appeal Court, those affected will know what to do,” he said. When reminded that the outcome of the litigation may turn against defectors who have participated in primaries as stipulated by law, he said, “well, there is no harm in trying.”
NDC scribe, Osa Director, a lawyer himself, said the defectors had nothing to lose. The law is what it said at the time it was made.
He said, “At the time the judgement was granted, the defectors had no barrier. The law is what it says. That is why we in the NDC took our chances and granted the defectors waivers. If another judgement is made thereafter, it will take effect from the day it was made. The law does not mean everything must be at a standstill. We believe in the rule of law. We can always count our losses or gains at the end of the day.”
For a former INEC Commissioner, Mike Igini, Justice Umar’s judgement nullifying INEC revised timetable is commendable, maintaining that the INEC regulation would not stand the test of time.
Igini, who recalled how in February this year he intervened through a press statement, warning that “what the National Assembly tried to do with Section 77 was wrong, “ further said, the law is clear that submission of candidates that emerged from primaries, in line with Section 29, should not be later than 120 days before the day fixed for election.
He added that there was no law prescribing when a person could decide to join or no longer be a member of a party as Section 77 of the Electoral Act violates Section 40 of the Constitution.
“But trying to use Section 77 to say you must submit a registered list of your members within a certain period and, again, going further by the lower chamber of the National Assembly prescribing a three-year jail term and trying to criminalise freedom of association is most unfortunate, because a political party is a voluntary organisation,” he said, adding that, “It is governed by the principle of free entry and free exit, as propounded by Michael Porter, so what has happened today, (May 23 Judgement by Justice Umar) I hope we will learn from it.”
Taking another critical look at Section 77 of the Electoral Act, a lawyer, First Baba Isa, a Ph.D candidate researching the topic: “Evaluating the use of technology and its legal implications to elections in Nigeria, said the provision only makes sense from a policy perspective. Arguing that since the law only says that eligible participants in party primaries must be registered members, those who choose the consensus option are not legally captured in the provision.
He said, “The key lies in the exact words used in subsections (5) and (6). Let us examine subsection (5) again: “Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries…”
“Did you notice that? The subsection specifically refers to party primaries. That distinction is critical. Under the new Electoral Act, specifically Section 84(2), there are two recognized methods by which a political party can produce its candidate: Direct primaries, and Consensus. Now, the issue is Section 77 repeatedly refers to party primaries. It mandates the use of the submitted membership register for primaries. It states that only persons whose names are contained in that register may vote or be voted for in primaries. But what happens where the party adopts the consensus method? The law is conspicuously silent. It does not expressly state that the register submitted to INEC must also govern the consensus process. And courts do not possess the luxury of rewriting statutes. One of the oldest principles of statutory interpretation is that: A court cannot read into statutes words which the legislature did not include.”
He contended that if any party chooses to produce its candidate through consensus rather than primaries, what prevents it from adopting an aspirant who defected to it and whose name was never in the register earlier submitted to INEC?
“The Act does not expressly answer that question. And in law, silence can sometimes be fatal,” he said.
Author Profile
Source: TheWillNigeria | Read the Full Story…
