Gbenga Hashim sues Accord, INEC, urges court to uphold him as party’s presidential candidate

Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, a presidential aspirant of the Accord Party, has initiated a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking judicial recognition as the party's legitimate presidential candidate for the 2027 general election. The lawsuit, which names the Accord Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants, challenges the party's alleged failure to upload his name to INEC's nomination portal despite his claim of emerging as the sole winner of a presidential primary. This pre-election dispute highlights critical issues surrounding internal party democracy, compliance with the Electoral Act, and the extent of INEC's regulatory oversight over candidate nomination processes, particularly in light of recent judicial pronouncements limiting INEC's powers to dictate party primary timetables.

The political landscape ahead of Nigeria's 2027 general election is already witnessing the commencement of significant pre-election litigation, exemplified by the suit filed by Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim against the Accord Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Dr. Olawepo-Hashim, an aspirant for the presidential ticket under the Accord Party, has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking an order to compel the party to recognize him as its presidential candidate and transmit his name to INEC. This legal challenge, currently adjourned to July 14, 2026, underscores the persistent tensions between internal party autonomy and the statutory requirements governing candidate nomination.

This case is not merely an internal party squabble; it carries broader implications for Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence. It forces a re-examination of the roles and responsibilities of political parties in adhering to their own constitutions and the Electoral Act, as well as the scope of INEC's powers in monitoring and enforcing compliance. The outcome will likely shape how future candidate selection disputes are resolved, influencing the integrity of the electoral process and the democratic accountability of political parties.

This article will delve into the legal framework underpinning pre-election matters in Nigeria, analyze the specific claims and counter-claims in Dr. Olawepo-Hashim's suit, and discuss the potential impact of recent judicial decisions on INEC's regulatory authority. It aims to provide legal practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in such disputes and the evolving judicial posture towards internal party affairs.

The nomination of candidates by political parties for elective offices in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act, 2026. Section 84(1) of the Electoral Act mandates political parties to conduct primaries for all aspirants, with such primaries subject to monitoring by INEC. The Act outlines three permissible modes for candidate nomination: direct primaries, indirect primaries, or consensus. Crucially, Section 84(3) restricts political parties from imposing qualification or disqualification criteria on aspirants beyond those prescribed by the Constitution.

Historically, pre-election disputes arising from party primaries have been a recurring feature of Nigeria's electoral cycle, often leading to extensive litigation. The Electoral Act, 2026, specifically grants jurisdiction to the Federal High Court to hear and determine pre-election matters, as stipulated in Section 84(14). However, recent legislative developments, specifically an amendment to Section 29A of the Electoral Act, 2026, reportedly transmitted for presidential assent, propose a significant shift: pre-election matters relating to presidential and vice-presidential elections would commence directly at the Court of Appeal, with appeals lying to the Supreme Court. This potential jurisdictional change could have profound implications for the handling of cases like Dr. Olawepo-Hashim's.

INEC's role, as outlined in its 'Regulation for the Conduct of Political Party Primaries,' includes monitoring primaries and verifying compliance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and party rules. However, the extent of INEC's power to dictate the specifics of party primaries has been a subject of recent judicial scrutiny. A Federal High Court ruling in *Youth Party v. INEC* (FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026) notably held that INEC lacks the constitutional or statutory authority to set timetables for party primaries or abridge timelines expressly provided in the Electoral Act, affirming greater autonomy for political parties in their internal processes. This judgment, currently under appeal, forms a critical backdrop to any pre-election litigation involving INEC's regulatory directives.

Dr. Olawepo-Hashim's suit hinges on the assertion that he emerged as the sole winner of the Accord Party's presidential primary and that the party's refusal to submit his name to INEC violates the Electoral Act, the Constitution, and INEC's regulations. He further claims that the party failed to provide aspirants with guidelines for the primary, contrary to INEC's regulations. This raises questions of procedural compliance, both on the part of the political party and the aspirant.

The Accord Party, in its defense, has vehemently denied conducting any presidential primary, stating that no aspirant, including Dr. Olawepo-Hashim, completed the requisite nomination process within the stipulated deadlines. The party's National Chairman, Barrister Maxwell Mgbudem, asserted that the reported primary was unauthorized and that payments made by Dr. Olawepo-Hashim for expression of interest and nomination forms were received after the official deadline. This creates a factual dispute regarding whether a valid primary election indeed took place and whether Dr. Olawepo-Hashim fulfilled the party's internal requirements.

Judicial precedents in Nigeria have consistently affirmed that while political parties have the exclusive right to nominate candidates, such nominations must comply with the party's constitution and the Electoral Act. The Supreme Court, in various decisions, has clarified that courts will intervene in internal party affairs only where there is a clear breach of statutory provisions or the party's own constitution and guidelines. The principle of *locus standi* in pre-election matters is also crucial, as only an aspirant who participated in the primary election can challenge its outcome. Dr. Olawepo-Hashim's claim of participation and emergence as a sole winner would likely establish his *locus standi* to bring the action.

The recent Federal High Court pronouncements in *Youth Party v. INEC* regarding INEC's limited powers to set primary timetables could influence the court's consideration of Dr. Olawepo-Hashim's claim that Accord Party failed to provide guidelines in line with INEC's regulations. While INEC can monitor and ensure compliance with the law, its ability to dictate the minutiae of party internal processes has been curtailed. However, INEC's 'Regulation for the Conduct of Political Party Primaries' still empowers it to intervene if party conditions violate the Constitution, Electoral Act, or the party's own constitution. The court will need to determine whether Accord Party's actions or inactions constituted a violation of the Electoral Act or its own constitution, rather than merely a deviation from an INEC-imposed timeline. Furthermore, the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2026, emphasize the need to join all necessary parties and commence suits by originating summons, particularly where facts are largely undisputed, though oral evidence may be taken for contentious facts like those surrounding the conduct of a primary.

The ongoing litigation initiated by Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim serves as a timely reminder for legal practitioners of the intricate and often contentious nature of pre-election disputes in Nigeria. The case highlights the critical importance of political parties meticulously adhering to their own constitutions and the provisions of the Electoral Act, particularly concerning candidate nomination processes and the conduct of primaries. Any deviation or perceived non-compliance can, and often does, lead to judicial intervention, potentially altering the course of electoral outcomes.

Practitioners advising political parties must emphasize robust internal democratic processes, transparent guideline dissemination, and strict adherence to statutory timelines for candidate nomination. For aspirants, understanding the precise requirements of both the party constitution and the Electoral Act is paramount, as is the timely and proper documentation of all steps taken in the nomination process. The evolving jurisprudence on INEC's regulatory powers, particularly the ongoing appeal concerning its authority to set party primary timetables, will be crucial to watch, as it will further define the boundaries of electoral oversight. The ultimate decision in Dr. Olawepo-Hashim's case will undoubtedly contribute to the growing body of pre-election case law, offering further clarity or, potentially, new complexities for the 2027 general election cycle.