LP Vice Chairman Faults Justice Lifu On Ogun Gov’ship Judgement

The National Vice Chairman of Labour Party, the South West, Dr. Abayomi Arabambi, has faulted the decision of Justice Lifu which recognized Adebutu as the PDP governorship candidate for the 2027 Ogun State election.

According to Arabambi, the verdict raises fundamental questions concerning statutory compliance, judicial interpretation and the binding force of Supreme Court decisions.

Arabambi stated that besides constitutional provisions, Section 84 of the Electoral Act empowers INEC to “provide rules and regulations which shall govern” political parties.

“If INEC is truly a regulator, it should be allowed to regulate. It cannot see political parties breaking the law, breaching the Electoral Act and flouting its regulations and be helpless.

“What decisions like today’s decision mean is that INEC is just a clerical office, a mere clearing house for information, documents, and stakeholders in the electoral process – without the ability to identify breaches of law or compel compliance. That is contrary to the nature of INEC as a regularor,” Arabambi stated in an open letter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who is also the Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

The LP chieftain claimed that the judgment, as reported, appears to have elevated the internal autonomy of political parties above the mandatory provisions of Sections 77(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“Consequently, it is submitted that the mere production of a different membership register during litigation cannot, without proof of its timely submission to INEC, retrospectively validate an otherwise defective nomination.

“More troubling is the reported evidence that the PDP’s National Organising Secretary admitted under cross-examination that Adebutu’s name was absent from the register submitted to INEC, attributing the non-submission of another register containing his name to an error of omission.

“An admitted statutory default cannot ordinarily be cured by an explanation of administrative inadvertence. The reported controversy surrounding serial number 1536 in the competing registers further raises a serious evidential question.

“If that serial number belonged to another individual in the register submitted to INEC, the trial court was required to resolve the discrepancy before treating the subsequently produced register as conclusive proof of statutory compliance.

“Furthermore, the proposition that INEC lacks the power to disqualify candidates
must not be confused with the Commission’s statutory responsibility to verify compliance with electoral requirements and supreme court judgement.Political party autonomy is not a licence to disregard express legislative prescriptions.

“The Supreme Court’s reported decision of September 24, 2026, upholding the validity of the relevant provisions of Section 77, makes it particularly important that those provisions receive their full legal effect and can be enforced,” he added.

He subsequently urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial court’s reasoning effectively permitted a political party to achieve through subsequent documentary production what Section 77(6) prohibits it from doing during the primary process.

According to Arabambi, where a statute expressly requires a political party to use the membership register submitted to INEC, a court cannot dispense with that requirement merely because the party subsequently produces another register containing the name of its preferred candidate.

“Any contrary approach risks converting mandatory electoral safeguards into optional administrative formalities,” he submitted.