Wakil Oyedemi seeks cancellation of APC House of Representatives primary over alleged Electoral Act, party guideline violations
A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State Judicial Division, has fixed Monday, October 26, 2026, for ruling in a suit challenging the All Progressives Congress’ House of Representatives primary for the Afijio/Atiba/Oyo East/Oyo West Federal Constituency, popularly known as Oyo Federal Constituency.
The suit, marked FHC/IB/CS/64/2026, was filed by Wakil Oyeleru Oyedemi against the All Progressives Congress, Akeem Adeyemi and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
Oyedemi is seeking an order nullifying and setting aside the APC primary conducted in the constituency for allegedly failing to comply with the Electoral Act 2026 and the party’s guidelines.
The parties were absent from Monday’s proceedings but were represented by their respective counsel, who adopted their processes and made oral submissions before the presiding judge, Justice Nkeonye Evelyn Maha.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Musibau Adetunbi, represented Oyedemi, while Ibrahim Bawa, SAN, led the legal team for the APC. Kazeem Adedeji appeared for Adeyemi, while A.F. Lawal represented INEC.
In urging the court to grant the plaintiff’s prayers, Adetunbi argued that the evidence before the court showed that accreditation of members was not conducted in all the four local government areas involved in the primary.
He particularly relied on an affidavit filed by INEC, which he said indicated that accreditation did not take place in Wards 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Adetunbi maintained that the alleged failure to conduct accreditation constituted a breach of the electoral process and urged the court to nullify the primary and order the APC to conduct a fresh one within the stipulated period.
He also opposed the preliminary objections raised by the APC, arguing that the plaintiff was entitled to call the relevant agents in support of his case.
The plaintiff’s counsel further urged the court to compare an exhibit filed by INEC with another document submitted by the APC, alleging that the evidence contained in the documents was not signed by the same person named in them.
However, counsel to the APC, Bawa, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the suit on grounds of incompetence.
Bawa argued that the case was a special proceeding in which parties were not permitted to call witnesses and contended that the plaintiff had filed 39 affidavits without obtaining the required leave of court.
He maintained that the procedure adopted by the plaintiff was contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Electoral Act and urged the court to dismiss the originating summons.
Counsel to Adeyemi, Adedeji, also urged the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s case.
He argued that the plaintiff’s contention that no primary election was conducted had been countered by the defendants with evidence showing that an indirect primary election took place.
According to him, the plaintiff had not made consensus an issue in the suit and therefore could not introduce arguments concerning consensus at that stage.
Adedeji maintained that the plaintiff’s case was defective both in fact and law and urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection.
INEC’s counsel, Lawal, aligned himself with the submissions of the APC and adopted the processes already filed by the commission.
He consequently urged the court to dismiss the originating summons.
After hearing the submissions from all parties, Justice Maha adjourned the matter until October 26, 2026, for ruling.