Kolawole Akinlayo Challenges Ekiti Primary Result, Cites Electoral Act Violation

A member of the House of Representatives, Kolawole Akinlayo, has formally challenged the outcome of the All Progressives Congress (APC) primary election for Ekiti North Federal Constituency II. The lawmaker alleges that the declared winner, Kunle Ibrahim, was a political appointee at the time of the primary, in direct contravention of Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026. This challenge underscores the persistent legal complexities surrounding the eligibility of political appointees in party primaries and highlights the critical importance of strict adherence to electoral laws and judicial precedents, particularly the Supreme Court's pronouncement in *Tukur v. Mustapha* (2023). Akinlayo seeks either Ibrahim's disqualification or the conduct of a fresh primary election, bringing the integrity of intra-party democracy under scrutiny.

The integrity of Nigeria's electoral process, particularly at the crucial stage of party primaries, is once again under the spotlight following a legal challenge by a serving lawmaker of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Honourable Kolawole Akinlayo, representing Moba/Ilejemeje/Ido Osi Federal Constituency, has petitioned the APC leadership, contesting the result of the party's primary election for Ekiti North Federal Constituency II. His core contention revolves around an alleged violation of the Electoral Act, 2026, specifically concerning the eligibility of the declared winner, Kunle Ibrahim.

This development is not merely an internal party squabble but a significant legal and political challenge that resonates with broader issues of electoral compliance and fairness within Nigeria's democratic framework. The lawmaker asserts that Mr. Ibrahim remained a political appointee during the primary election, a status that, if proven, would render his participation unlawful and his victory a nullity. The challenge calls for a rigorous application of the law, potentially leading to the disqualification of the purported winner or the ordering of a fresh primary.

This article will delve into the statutory provisions governing the participation of political appointees in party primaries, examine relevant judicial interpretations, and discuss the implications of such challenges for political parties, aspirants, and the broader electoral landscape in Nigeria. It aims to provide legal professionals with a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles at play and the potential ramifications of non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

The conduct of primary elections in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Electoral Act, which sets out the procedures and eligibility criteria for aspirants. A pivotal provision in this regard is Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 (which mirrors Section 84(12) of the repealed Electoral Act, 2022). This section unequivocally states that "No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for during party conventions, congresses or primaries of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election." The clear implication of this provision is that any individual holding a political appointment must first resign from that office before being eligible to participate in party primaries, either as a delegate or an aspirant.

This particular section has been a recurring subject of intense debate and litigation in Nigeria's recent electoral history. The legislative intent behind it is to create a level playing field for all aspirants, preventing political appointees from leveraging their official positions and access to public resources to gain an undue advantage in intra-party contests. While the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides for public servants to resign 30 days before a general election, Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act specifically addresses political appointees and their participation in party primaries, imposing an earlier requirement for resignation.

Notably, the constitutionality of the analogous Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, was previously challenged, including a suit filed by then-President Muhammadu Buhari. However, the Supreme Court, in *Attorney-General of the Federation v. National Assembly* (2022), declined jurisdiction on the President's suit, affirming the legislative supremacy of the National Assembly in enacting such provisions. This judicial stance effectively solidified the enforceability of the provision, paving the way for its rigorous application in subsequent electoral cycles.

The core of Honourable Akinlayo's challenge rests on the assertion that Kunle Ibrahim, the declared winner of the Ekiti North Federal Constituency II primary, was serving as a Senior Special Assistant to the President on National Assembly Matters at the time the primary election was conducted. This allegation, if substantiated, would place Mr. Ibrahim in direct violation of Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026. The legal consequence of such a violation is severe, as Section 84(13) of the Electoral Act (which is likely mirrored in the 2026 Act) stipulates that "Where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue."

The Supreme Court has provided definitive guidance on this matter. In the landmark case of *Tukur v. Mustapha* (2023), the Apex Court unequivocally held that political appointees seeking elective positions must first resign or relinquish their appointments before participating in party primaries, whether as delegates or aspirants. This judgment serves as a binding precedent, reinforcing the mandatory nature of the resignation requirement for political appointees. The implication is that participation without prior resignation renders the candidacy invalid *ab initio*.

Furthermore, President Bola Tinubu, in March 2026, issued a directive requiring all political appointees aspiring for elective offices in the 2027 general elections to resign their appointments by March 31, 2026. This directive was explicitly based on Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)'s timetable for party primaries. This presidential directive underscores the executive's recognition and enforcement of the statutory provision, adding another layer of expectation for compliance from political appointees. The lawmaker's petition to the APC National Chairman and the party's National Assembly Appeal Committee seeks to invoke these established legal principles, demanding either Mr. Ibrahim's disqualification and his recognition as the rightful winner (having come second) or a fresh primary election involving only qualified aspirants.

The APC's internal dispute resolution mechanisms are the initial forum for addressing such challenges. However, should the party's decision not satisfy the aggrieved party, the matter can escalate to the Federal High Court, which has jurisdiction over pre-election matters. The courts will primarily assess whether Mr. Ibrahim was indeed a political appointee at the material time of the primary and whether he had duly resigned in accordance with the Electoral Act and the Supreme Court's pronouncements. The absence of proper resignation would likely lead to the nullification of his candidacy, consistent with the *Tukur v. Mustapha* precedent.

The challenge to the Ekiti APC primary election result by Honourable Kolawole Akinlayo serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of strict adherence to the Electoral Act, particularly Section 88(1), which governs the eligibility of political appointees in party primaries. The Supreme Court's definitive ruling in *Tukur v. Mustapha* (2023) has firmly established the legal imperative for political appointees to resign their positions before participating in such contests. This precedent, coupled with the recent presidential directive, leaves no ambiguity regarding the legal requirements.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the need for meticulous due diligence in advising political parties and aspirants. Parties must ensure their internal processes and candidate screenings are robust enough to identify and address potential eligibility issues proactively, thereby minimizing costly and time-consuming pre-election litigation. Aspirants, particularly those holding political appointments, must be unequivocally advised to comply with the resignation requirements well in advance of primary elections. The outcome of this challenge will not only determine the APC's candidate for Ekiti North Federal Constituency II but will also reinforce the judiciary's role in upholding electoral integrity and ensuring that intra-party democracy is conducted within the bounds of the law, setting a crucial precedent for future elections.