A former presidential candidate and energy entrepreneur, Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, has called on President Bola Tinubu to intervene in the nation’s electoral process by supporting a shift in the timetable for political party primaries to September, in line with provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

Olawepo-Hashim made the call in an open letter addressed to the President, warning that the current rush toward early primaries could undermine internal party democracy and weaken the credibility of the 2027 general elections.

According to a statement issued by his media office and made available to PUNCH Online on Thursday, the former candidate stressed that Section 29(1) of the amended Electoral Act provides a broader window for parties to conduct their primaries up to mid-September.

He argued that adherence to this timeline would enhance transparency, inclusiveness, and fairness in the electoral process.

“The current timetable constrains the latitude of political parties to conduct their primaries. There is a need to allow sufficient time, as envisaged by law, for parties to organise credible and participatory primaries,” he stated.

Olawepo-Hashim expressed concern that compressing the primary election process could fuel disputes within parties, disenfranchise aspirants, and ultimately diminish public confidence in the electoral system.

He also warned that actions capable of producing a non-competitive electoral environment could pose serious risks to Nigeria’s democratic stability.

He recalled that Nigeria’s democratic gains were built through sacrifices made during the struggle against military rule, stressing that safeguarding political pluralism remains essential to sustaining those gains.

The letter further urged the President to promote reforms that would strengthen electoral credibility, including a review of contentious provisions in the Electoral Act and measures to ensure a level playing field for all political actors.

He also called for steps to enhance confidence in electoral institutions, noting that trust in the system is critical to peaceful and credible elections.

According to him, allowing political parties adequate time to conduct primaries would not only reduce tensions but also deepen internal democracy and improve the quality of candidates that emerge for elective offices.

He maintained that adjusting the timetable to align with the Electoral Act would demonstrate a commitment to due process and help avert avoidable political disputes ahead of the polls.

The former presidential candidate expressed hope that the President would consider the recommendations in the interest of political stability and national cohesion.

He added that ensuring a transparent and inclusive primary process remains a key step toward credible elections and the consolidation of democracy in Nigeria.

The Attorney General of the Federation has thrown its weight behind a suit seeking the deregistration of some political parties, including the African Democratic Congress, over alleged constitutional breaches.

The position of the AGF was contained in a notice filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, according to documents obtained from Tribune Online.

The defendants in the suit are the Independent National Electoral Commission, the Attorney General of the Federation, African Democratic Congress, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party, Accord, and Zenith Labour Party.

In the notice filed pursuant to Order 15 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the AGF, listed as the second defendant, said it admitted the plaintiff’s suit “to the extent of its constitutional responsibility.”

The AGF stated that it was “the custodian and protector of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and had a duty to support actions aimed at enforcing constitutional provisions.

“It is the constitutional responsibility of the Attorney General of the Federation to bring, defend or support any action for the observance of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” the filing read.

The AGF further argued that by virtue of Section 150(1) of the Constitution, it was responsible for the execution of laws, including the Electoral Act regulating elections in the country.

The notice stated, “The 2nd Defendant has dual role as both an advocate for the state and defender of citizen rights, must act in public interest in supporting the Plaintiff’s case for the promotion of justice and ensure that laws are interpreted and applied correctly.”

It added that the office of the AGF was “enjoined to collaborate with other government agencies and citizens to ensure that laws are effectively enforced.”

According to the filing, supporting the suit aligned with the constitutional mandate of the AGF in “protection of the provisions of the Constitution.”

The AGF also argued that access to justice remained a fundamental aspect of democracy, adding that many citizens lacked the means to challenge constitutional violations.

“The Attorney General’s support helps bridge the gap in facilitating access to justice for Plaintiffs who seek to challenge violation of their constitutional rights,” the notice stated.

The AGF maintained that supporting the case would help reinforce constitutional supremacy and accountability.

“By backing Plaintiff herein, the 2nd Defendant contributes to the establishment of legal precedent that reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution, thereby fostering a culture of accountability and respect for the law,” the filing stated.

The AGF further submitted that the plaintiff possessed “sufficient interest to question constitutional infractions in the electoral system.”

It stated that Section 225A of the Constitution was introduced to address ballot paper clogging which has complicated the voting process.

The notice argued that INEC had “no residual discretion to retain the registration of political parties that have clearly failed to satisfy the minimum threshold prescribed under Section 225A of the Constitution.”

According to the AGF, “The continued existence of nonperforming political parties will inflate the ballots, burden public funds, complicate election administration and undermine the constitutional intention behind Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.”

The AGF added that “any failure or refusal” by INEC to deregister the affected political parties constituted “a continuing breach of constitutional duty” that could be challenged through public interest litigation.

The case is part of a fresh legal battle over the status of political parties and the powers of INEC under the Constitution and Electoral Act.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, invalidated the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held in Ibadan, Oyo State, on November 15 and 16, 2025, deepening the leadership crisis rocking Nigeria’s main opposition party ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In a split judgment delivered by a five-member panel of the apex court, three justices held that the appeal filed by a faction of the party led by former Minister of Special Duties, Tanimu Turaki (SAN), lacked merit and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal nullifying the convention.

Justice Stephen Adah, who delivered the lead judgment in appeal number SC/CV/164/2026, held that the appellants acted in flagrant disobedience of a subsisting order of the Federal High Court restraining them from proceeding with the planned convention pending compliance with earlier directives of the court.

“The disobedience of the court order is not disputed,” Justice Adah held, adding that what transpired amounted to “a threat to the administration of justice in Nigeria.”

The apex court consequently dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeals and ordered parties to bear their respective costs.

The dispute arose from the controversial Ibadan convention organised by the Turaki-led faction of the PDP despite pending court orders and unresolved disputes over congresses conducted in several states.

Aggrieved party members had approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that the organisers failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Electoral Act and the party’s constitution before proceeding with the convention.

The trial court subsequently restrained the party from holding the convention pending compliance with its directives.

However, despite the order, the convention went ahead in Ibadan and produced a factional leadership structure, triggering fresh litigation and accusations of forum shopping within the party.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court strongly condemned what it described as a deliberate attempt by political actors to undermine judicial authority by securing conflicting orders from courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

Justice Adah said instead of obeying the order of the Federal High Court or pursuing lawful appellate remedies, the appellants allegedly approached another High Court in Ibadan to obtain orders that enabled them to proceed with the convention.

“The appellant did not go on appeal but went to another High Court where they secured orders overriding the existing order of the Federal High Court and carried on with the party convention,” the justice said.

The apex court described the conduct as “an unparalleled abuse of court process” that struck “at the very roots of the administration of justice system.”

Justice Adah warned that continued disregard for judicial orders by politicians posed grave dangers to constitutional democracy and the rule of law.

“The rule of law is not an ornamentality, revoked, destroyed or discarded in practice. It is the fundamental architecture on which the legitimacy of governance rests,” he stated.

He added that once political actors begin to treat lawful judicial processes as optional, “the very essence of constitutional democracy is imperilled.”

The court further held that political parties, though voluntary associations, derive their legal existence and authority from the Constitution and must therefore operate within constitutional and judicial limits.

Relying on Sections 221, 222 and 229 of the 1999 Constitution, the apex court held that political parties remain constitutional institutions established for the purpose of participating in governance and elections and are therefore bound by lawful court orders.

Justice Adah noted that the Federal High Court, being a superior court of record vested with judicial powers under the Constitution, could not be ignored merely because a political party considered its orders inconvenient.

The apex court also upheld the findings of the lower courts that abuse of court process had been established following the move by the PDP faction to obtain what was described as a counter-order from a court of coordinate jurisdiction in Ibadan.

The Court of Appeal had, in its March 9 judgment, affirmed the earlier decision of the Federal High Court and held that the convention was conducted in violation of subsisting judicial orders and contrary to established legal procedures.

Dissatisfied with the appellate court’s decision, the Turaki-led faction proceeded to the Supreme Court, seeking five principal reliefs and one general relief, including orders setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and validating the Ibadan convention.

However, the apex court rejected the appeal in its entirety.

The Supreme Court had reserved judgment in the appeal after hearing arguments from parties on April 22.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM