APC lawmaker challenges Ekiti primary result, cites Electoral Act violation

The legal challenge initiated by an APC lawmaker against the Ekiti primary results centers on a critical interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, which mandates that political appointees must resign their positions before participating in party primaries. The petitioner contends that the declared winner, Kunle Ibrahim, failed to vacate his office prior to the contest, thereby rendering his candidacy invalid ab initio. This development highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny of internal party democracy in Nigeria, where the courts are increasingly tasked with enforcing strict compliance with statutory eligibility requirements to ensure the integrity of the electoral process from the primary stage through to the general election.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores the necessity of rigorous due diligence regarding the status of political aspirants before the commencement of primary elections. The legal significance lies in the potential for the court to order a fresh primary or disqualify the winner, which would have profound implications for the party’s representation in the upcoming polls. The relevant legal framework includes the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which empower the Federal High Court to adjudicate on matters concerning the qualification of candidates. Practitioners should monitor the court’s interpretation of the resignation timeline, as this will serve as a vital precedent for future election petition tribunals.

Attorneys representing political parties or aspirants must advise their clients to maintain meticulous records of resignation letters and acknowledgments from relevant authorities to preempt such litigation. Businesses and political entities should be aware that the judiciary is becoming less tolerant of procedural lapses in party primaries, often viewing them as violations of the party’s own constitution and the national Electoral Act. Moving forward, legal teams should focus on the evidentiary burden required to prove that an appointee remained in office during the primary, as the court will likely demand concrete proof of continued remuneration or official activity to sustain a claim of disqualification.