Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to reinstate the name of Ladi Adebutu as the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) governorship candidate in Ogun State within 24 hours.

Justice Lifu held that INEC lacked the authority to unilaterally disqualify a candidate from contesting an election.

The judge also ruled that Adebutu’s right to a fair hearing had been violated, noting that the power to disqualify a candidate after a political party had forwarded the candidate’s name rested with the Federal High Court or a State High Court.

He consequently declared the exclusion of Adebutu’s name unlawful, unconstitutional, and of no effect.

The ruling followed the dismissal of INEC’s preliminary objection seeking to strike out the suit filed by the PDP.

Explaining his decision, Lifu said the court had carefully examined the originating summons and found it competent.

“I have carefully assessed the originating summons, and I see that it bears the name of the senior counsel and was signed by him. It also has the names of other counsels in the law firm,” he said.

The judge said the court had perused the originating summons and was satisfied that it met the necessary legal requirements. He therefore dismissed the preliminary objection.

In the substantive suit, Lifu said the second plaintiff, Adebutu, had stated that he contested the Ogun State governorship election in 2019 and was the PDP’s candidate in 2023.

He also said Adebutu participated in the party’s primary election for the 2027 governorship poll and that, on August 29, 2026, the party published his name without any challenge.

The judge recounted the plaintiffs’ argument that when INEC published its list of candidates in October, Adebutu’s name was missing, despite the fact that he had not withdrawn from the race.

He added that the PDP and its National Secretary wrote to INEC on October 14, requesting that the commission reverse the decision, but received no favourable response.

The judge said INEC maintained that it was bound by the provisions of the Electoral Act and urged the court to dismiss the suit.

During the proceedings, Umar Bature testified as the first prosecution witness (PW1), while Mustapha Mohammed appeared as the defence witness (DW1).

In his testimony, Bature said he was the PDP’s National Organising Secretary and was responsible for registering new members and maintaining the party’s membership register.

He told the court that the party had submitted its membership list to INEC within the prescribed period on a flash drive and that Adebutu’s name was included.

The judge also noted that Adebutu’s membership of the PDP had never been in dispute, adding that he was the first to register as a member on February 24, 2026.

Bature maintained that the removal of Adebutu’s name was not supported by any law and urged the court to direct INEC to publish it.

He further told the court that the flash drive submitted by the party was not the same one presented by INEC during the proceedings.

He said the party submitted the list of all its members on April 22, 2026, with a total membership of more than 30,000.

The judge said Mohammed, who testified as DW1, identified himself as an INEC programme analyst and said he supervised the exercise conducted by PW1.

According to the judge, Mohammed told the court that the PDP submitted its membership list in both hard-copy and electronic formats on a flash drive.

Mohammed said that before the publication of the final list of candidates, his department conducted a search and discovered that Adebutu’s name was missing, although the name of his running mate appeared on the list.

However, under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that he was not the person who received the flash drive from the PDP and, therefore, could not say what the party had submitted.

The issues for determination included whether the plaintiffs’ right to a fair hearing had been breached, whether INEC had the power to unilaterally disqualify Adebutu, and whether the commission could remove the candidate’s name from the list.

On the first issue, Lifu held that the right to a fair hearing was fundamental to Nigeria’s legal system.

“It is a judicial or administrative hearing conducted by due process. Therefore, before a decision is taken over a person, such person must be afforded the right to fair hearing,” the court said.

The judge ruled that INEC had breached the plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing.

“When a right is vested in a person, such right cannot be taken away without hearing from the person.

“Adebutu was not accorded the right to be heard before INEC took the decision. Therefore, the right to fair hearing of the plaintiff is breached,” the court ruled.

On the second issue, the judge said the first plaintiff had maintained that Adebutu was duly nominated by the party and that his name had been forwarded to INEC.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Lifu said the decision did not confer on INEC the authority to remove the names of members or candidates submitted by political parties at its discretion.

“I have taken a cursory look at the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not give INEC the power to start omitting or removing names of members from a party.

“INEC does not have the power to remove names or disqualify any candidate on its own. The power to disqualify a candidate after the name has been forwarded resides with the FHC or State High Court.

“The commission lacks the power to disqualify any candidate. Even if INEC believes that the name of a candidate was omitted, the commission must approach the court that has the power to remove the name.

“The power to nominate a candidate for an election exclusively belongs to a political party, and the exercise of that power is within a party.

“A court has no power to nominate a candidate. That has been the position of the law. The effect of the above is that no authority can nominate a candidate or remove it,” the court said.

The judge further stated that the PDP had conducted its primary election on May 24, at which Adebutu emerged as its candidate.

He said INEC had a responsibility to monitor party primaries to ensure compliance with the law, adding that the evidence before the court showed that the primary election was not defective and that Adebutu had been validly nominated.

The court consequently resolved the second issue against INEC.

The third issue was also resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.

Lifu said matters relating to nomination and publication of candidates’ names were pre-election matters. He noted that Adebutu had been declared the winner of the primary election on May 24 and that INEC had not raised any objection at the time.

“As far as I know, no person filed any suit to challenge Adebutu 14 days after the conduct of the poll. It was baffling that INEC waited until August,” the court said.

The judge reiterated that INEC lacked the power to disqualify a candidate unilaterally.

“This court has established that INEC lacks the power to disqualify any candidate.

“INEC should have approached the court to disqualify the candidate, but it waited until after four months to take the action. This, to me, is an afterthought.

“If this is not resolved, there will be a day that INEC will disqualify a candidate a day to election. This must not be allowed. This would be an absurdity.

“I resolve this issue in favour of the plaintiffs,” he held.

Addressing the provisions of Section 77(6) of the Electoral Act, the judge said the law required political parties to make their membership registers available not later than 21 days before an election.

“Section 77(6) says a party shall make the list of members available not later than 21 days before the election.

“It is only members whose names are contained that can participate in an election, and the plaintiffs said Adebutu participated and that his name is in the list.

“INEC should have raised the issue that Adebutu did not participate in its monitoring reports.

“The action of INEC makes it plausible that the name of the second plaintiff was contained in the list and that his serial number is 1536.”

Lifu said the court was inclined to set aside INEC’s decision, noting that the commission had acted beyond its statutory powers.

He added that INEC had failed to establish its case and that the court would disregard the evidence of its witness, DW1.

“The evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. PW1 said that the flash drive submitted was not the one INEC brought to court and that he only submitted a soft copy on a flash drive contrary to INEC’s claim.”

Justice Lifu further noted that INEC’s witness had initially testified that Adebutu’s name was not on the flash drive but later admitted that he was not the person who received it.

“The law is trite that failure to call a material or vital witness is fatal to the case of the defendant,” he said.

The court consequently ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.

“Consequently, the case of the plaintiff succeeds and is meritorious. The defendant acted ultra vires. INEC has no power, either administratively or otherwise, to remove a name if a candidate was validly nominated by the owner.

“The removal is unlawful, unconstitutional and of no effect,” Justice Lifu stated.

The court declared that, under the Electoral Act, INEC was bound to publish Adebutu’s name.

It ordered the commission to amend the candidates’ list published on October 10, 2026, to reflect Adebutu’s name.

The court also declared that INEC could not announce the result of the 2027 Ogun State governorship election without the participation of the plaintiffs, adding that any election conducted without their participation would be of no effect and unconstitutional.