Raheem Akingbolu who monitored the legal fireworks that trailed Governor Biodun Oyebanji’s adoption as the consensus candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress in Ekiti state writes that his victory at the court has further confirmed that law is all about facts and principles and not emotion and social media trial.
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 was a triumphant day for the Ekiti State Governor, Biodun Oyebanji. The one the latin people aptly referred to as “Annus Mirabillis”. The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja dismissed a case filed by one Mrs Abimbola Olajumoke Olawunmi against his emergence as the governorship candidate of the party for the impending June 20, 2026 poll.
The judicial verdict lent fillips to the fact that Oyebanji emerged through a credible process. Against opponents’ warped sentiments, this vividly signposted that his candidacy enjoyed legal fecundity and could endure any judicial scrutiny.
As part of their constitutional duties, the APC National Working Committee disqualified Olawumi from participating in the September 25, 2025 primary held to elect the governorship candidate. This was for various well publicisized reasons.
The most critical was her utter failure to prove her membership of the APC, among other internal political crucibles where she blatantly faltered and fell short of the law. It was on this premise she was justifiably screened out of the race.
The plaintiff’s grouse
Miffed by the disqualification hammer, the plaintiff approached the court through the amended originating summons of 9th February, 2026, seeking some reliefs. Chiefly, she sought the nullification of the process that produced Oyebanji as the candidate, for negating the provisions of the Electoral Act(as amended).
She alluded to the fact that her exclusion was a constitutional infraction that must be addressed judicially. The plaintiff further submitted that her disqualification from the race deeply abraded the provisions of the law and vitiated the primary.
The suit
The suit with registration Number FHC/ABJ/CS/222/25, had the APC and two others as defendants. It was filed before Justice Peter O. Lifu (JP) of the Federal High Court in Abuja. It was filed on October 21, 2025 and the amendment was done 9th February, 2026.
During trial, the defendant embarked on a voyage of legal expedition to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite in law that he who alleges must prove. The onus of prove rested on her heavily. But she failed derisively in this regard. It was a case of a wild goose chase.
Reply on point of law
Oyebanji expressed opposition to the widespread impression that he emerged through a lopsided and shammed primary. He objected virulently stating some grounds to substantiate his claim.
He adumbrated his Preliminary Objections by raising issues for determination to include: The court lacking the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Two, the plaintiff lacking the locus standi to challenge the primary. Three, the party supremacy and power to regulate its own primary: four, the matter being statute barred.
Globally, the court is not a Father Christmas that awards judgement based on sentiment, but only dispense justice on the premise of merit.
Jurisdiction
The defendants raised the issue of Jurisdiction and held fanatically to the fact that this is determined by the originating process of the plaintiff and not the processes of the Defence.
Statute/Propriety of the case:
The defendant raised the fact that the matter was filed outside the time and became statute barred. As contained in his reply and written address, Oyebanji submitted that the matter was filed 27 days after the action instead of 14 days prescribed by the law. This he said had rendered the suit nugatory and non justiciable.
Internal remedy/power of political party
The defendants raised the issue of limitation of law and internal remedy of political party to regulate and ascertain its membership. He said only the political party can ascertain the membership of any member. They maintained that the party has the propriety to disqualify the plaintiff from the race.
The stunning verdict
Justice Peter Lifu in his epic judgement, held that in determining jurisdiction, it’s the plaintiff’s case that would be looked at. The plaintiff did not participate in the primary because she was disqualified by the party. On this premise, the court doesn’t have the jurisdictional power to meddle in a case where the plaintiff is a mere meddlesome interloper.
Statute of the case
According to the judge, the law required that the suit ought to be filed within 14 days of the occurrence of the event.
The event complained of by the plaintiff happened on 25th September, 2025. In law, it is assumed that “Equity aids the vigilant and delay defeats equity”.
The court held that the suit by all standards was not filed within 14 days of the date of the alleged disqualification. It took the plaintiff more than 27 days to file the suit .
“The suit is a pre election matter. Any pre election matter not filed within the statutory period provided by the law is statute barred”, the court ruled.
Membership and jurisdiction
The court believed that the two are intertwined. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff is not their member her name having not been reflected in their register. The court has no jurisdiction to determine the membership of a political party as it is an internal affair and the sole responsibility of the political party to determine same.
No court can inquire into the issue of membership. The court held that the issue as to whether or not the Plaintiff was qualified to contest borders on membership and it is an internal affair of the political party.
The last judicial punch
The court finally held that “there’s no dispute worthy of the court’s intervention between the plaintiff and the defendants, the suit is therefore non-justiciable and discloses no reasonable cause of action”.
The suit was dismissed based on the above grounds in favour of the defendants.
The contenders and pretenders
Before the unfolding dramas, every discerning Ekiti could decipher that the plaintiff was not actually in the race. He was only running. In a political contest, not all that declared intents to run are actually in the race. There are contenders and pretenders. Pundits knew quite well that the plaintiff’s ambition was more of a comic relief.
The opposition, though feeble and emasculated, having been dwarfed by the governor’s performance and acceptability. But they stood poised to outfox him against all odds.
Even the fiercest of all the Oyebanji’s rivals, Engr Kayode Ojo, didn’t possess the political connects and wherewithal to undo his second term ambition. This fact was lucid and well established, periscoping issues altruistically using all political parameters.
Oyebanji’s judicial victory was indeed a triumph of truth over fiction.
🚨 BREAKING: Watch the full clip here ➤
