Ekiti APC Primaries Under Fire as Plaintiffs Seek Halt Against INEC and Oyebanji

In a bold legal challenge that could upend political timelines in Ekiti State, five aggrieved plaintiffs—including Omotoso Babtunde Peter, Akogun Abayomi Olumide, Fatai Bello Temitope, Babatola Ayodeji, and Usman Ayodeji—have filed an originating summons in the Federal High Court in Abuja, targeting the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the All Progressives Congress (APC), Professor Nentawe Goshwe Yilwatda, Senator Ajibola Basiru, and Governor Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji. Brought under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Order 3 Rule 9 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, the suit invokes the court’s inherent jurisdiction to scrutinise the legitimacy of recent APC primaries in the state, potentially stalling any further electoral actions amid accusations of procedural flaws and irregularities.

The plaintiffs, represented by Ojaomo and Ojaomo Chambers, have summoned the defendants—ranging from INEC’s headquarters at Zambezi Crescent in Maitama to the APC’s office on Blantyre Street in Wuse 2, and including key figures like the Plateau State-born Professor Yilwatda, Senator Basiru, and Governor Oyebanji at his Ekiti liaison office—to enter an appearance within 30 days.

The core of the summons demands judicial determination on whether the primaries complied with constitutional and electoral laws, with the plaintiffs urging the court to declare them invalid and restrain INEC from recognising any outcomes, including candidate nominations for upcoming polls.

In a pointed advisory accompanying the filing, legal counsel Tosin Ojaomo and Olatunde Ojaomo Esq. warn that proceeding with primaries linked to this suit would create a “fait accompli” situation, amounting to contempt of court. Drawing on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Ojukwu v Military Governor of Lagos State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 10) 806, they argue that once a matter is before a competent court—even without a decided interlocutory injunction—parties must refrain from any steps that undermine judicial authority, lest they face sanctions for insubordination. The lawyers emphasise that this principle protects the integrity of ongoing adjudication, preventing self-help measures that could prejudice the process.

This escalating courtroom drama arrives against a backdrop of simmering tensions within Ekiti’s APC ranks, where recent stakeholder appeals for President Tinubu’s intervention highlight fears over the party’s unity and popularity. As the suit gains traction, it threatens to delay Ekiti’s political machinery, forcing INEC and the APC to navigate a legal minefield while the plaintiffs seek not just answers but a full halt to tainted proceedings.

Court observers anticipate a swift hearing, with implications rippling through Nigeria’s opposition landscape as stakeholders brace for what could be a defining verdict on electoral fairness.