Court dismisses suit against Kwara APC Governor candidate
KEHINDE AKINPELU, I LORIN
A Federal High Court in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja, Court 9
presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, has dismissed a suit that sought to invalidate the Kwara State Governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress, (APC) Yakubu Danladi Salihu.
- Advertisement -
The Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1112/2026 was filed by Citizen Awareness Against Corruption & Social Vices Initiative against the APC, Salihu and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Special Adviser to the Governor of Kwara State on Legal Matters, Sambo Muritala, was an observer.
Justice Nwite in a judgement delivered yesterday but made available to journalists on Wednesday dismissed the suit for want of locus standi and on the merits, with N10 million costs against the claimant.
The claimant in the suit filed on 2 June 2026, alleged that Salihu was doubly nominated in the APC’s House of Assembly and governorship primaries. It sought a declaration that his participation in the state assembly and governorship primaries were null and void.
It prayed for a declaration that Salihu’s nomination, sponsorship and screening are null and void and an order setting aside the declaration of Musliu Obanikoro.
It also prayed the court’s order directing INEC to reject the second defendant’s nomination and others similars.
All the three defendants raised preliminary objections in their counter-affidavits. They challenged the claimant’s locus standi and the court’s jurisdiction. The claimant did not respond to the notices of objection.
On locus standi and jurisdiction, the court held that locus standi is sacrosanct in any action, and that jurisdiction is the threshold issue on which the competence of a suit depends (Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341). It held held that Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) limits standing in pre-election matters to: an aspirant who took part in the primaries and complains of non-compliance with the Electoral Act or the party’s guidelines; an aspirant who challenges INEC’s decisions or actions on the election timetable, voter registration and related activities; and
a political party complaining of INEC’s non-compliance with the Electoral Act or any applicable law in nominating candidates, the timetable and related preparations.
It also held that the Electoral Act 2026 likewise confines the right to complain of non-compliance in the selection or nomination of candidates to aspirants who participated in the primaries (section 88(2)).
It added that the same applies to challenges to false information in a candidate’s nomination documents (section 29(5)).
The court also relied on the principle that a plaintiff must show a sufficient interest and a threatened or actual injury (Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC 112; Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797; Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 315).
It held that the claimant, a civil society initiative, was neither an aspirant nor a political party and therefore lacked locus standi, and that the court lacked jurisdiction.
The court also held that the claimant’s notion of “double nomination” is not what the law prescribes (section 30, Electoral Act 2026).
It explained that a candidate who took part in different categories of primaries of the same party and was screened, but whose name was submitted to INEC for only one position, has not been doubly nominated.
According to it, a person becomes a candidate only when his party submits his name to INEC (section 29, Electoral Act 2026).
It held that double nomination in law means participation in primaries of two different political parties.
The court said that under Sections 131 to 133 of the Evidence Act 2011, the party asserting a fact bears the burden of proving it.
The court found that none of the claimant’s allegations was supported by evidence and that they consisted largely of speculation.
The court observed that standing in pre-election matters is confined to aspirants who participated in the primaries and to political parties and civil society groups and public-interest litigants fall outside it.
It also observed that a candidate who participated in more than one category of primary within the same party wad not doubly nominated, provided only one name was submitted to INEC.
It also stated that allegations in pre-election suits must be proved by evidence, not speculation.
The court therefore resolved all the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit with costs of ₦10,000,000 awarded against the claimant in favour of the defendants.
DemocracyNewslineNewspaper October 7th, 2026
