By Maiyegun Grandmaster Oloriegbe
The attempt by the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Working Committee (NWC) to substitute winners of its INEC-monitored primaries with new names via purported appeal committee recommendations and a subsequent letter to he Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void abinitio.
This action constitutes a brazen subversion of the democratic will expressed in the primaries, breaches the principles of fair hearing, and exposes the party to avoidable litigation, candidate disqualification, and severe reputational damage.
Critically, the INEC Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election expressly provides that the Conduct of Party Primaries, including resolution of disputes arising from the Primaries, must run from 23rd April, 2026 to 30th May, 2026. Any purported appeal or resolution after this cutoff date is inconsistent with the official timetable and cannot lawfully form the basis for substituting candidates whose names were already submitted following INEC-monitored primaries. The NWC’s post-30th May actions directly violate this binding schedule.
INEC must continue to unequivocally reject these substitutions and publish only candidates whose names align with the monitored primary results already uploaded to its system. Any acquiescence by INEC would undermine the integrity of the electoral process, render it complicit in illegality and remain ultra votes.
Factual Background
The APC conducted primaries in May 2026, which INEC duly monitored. Results, scores, and winners were declared and forwarded to INEC. Despite this, the NWC has now forwarded a revised list substituting approximately 26 candidates (including senatorial and House of Representatives nominees) across multiple states, purportedly based on internal “appeal committee” recommendations rather than fresh primaries, voluntary withdrawals, or deaths of candidates.
Legal Analysis
- Strict Limits on Candidate Substitution Under the Electoral Act
Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022 (as applicable) explicitly prohibits political parties from changing or substituting candidates after submission to INEC, except in cases of death or voluntary withdrawal by the candidate. Even then, a fresh primary must be conducted within the stipulated timeframe. The NWC’s action amounts to an impermissible rewriting of primary outcomes already verified by INEC.
- Appeal Committee Recommendations Are Legally Invalid and Cannot Stand
Even if the party claims that its internal Primary Election Appeal Committee reviewed petitions and recommended the changes, such a claim is wholly invalid and cannot stand in law. An internal appeal mechanism, no matter how constituted or the recommendations it produces, possesses no statutory power whatsoever to nullify, override, or substitute winners of INEC-monitored primaries after results have been declared and uploaded.
Party appeal committees are purely domestic bodies without authority to alter or supplant the mandatory primary process witnessed and documented by INEC. Reliance on such recommendations is ultra vires, self-serving, and amounts to a complete nullity. It represents an impermissible attempt to circumvent the Electoral Act’s strict substitution regime through internal fiat. Courts will not hesitate to declare such committee-driven substitutions illegal and unenforceable. Any defence grounded on appeal committee recommendations must fail as a matter of law.
- INEC’s Monitoring Role and Binding Primary Results
INEC’s statutory duty to monitor primaries makes the documented results sacrosanct. Once winners are declared and results uploaded, the party cannot unilaterally alter them through internal panels or letters. Allowing “appeal committee” overrides would render INEC’s monitoring exercise a meaningless formality.
- Violation of Fair Hearing and Constitutional Rights
Primary winners have a legitimate expectation of being the party’s candidates. Substituting them, even via an appeal committee, without giving the declared winners a proper opportunity to be heard on specific allegations violates Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (right to fair hearing). Such ex parte alterations are arbitrary, capricious, and a nullity.
- Precedent from Akpabio and Related Cases
The courts, including the Supreme Court have consistently scrutinised and sometimes nullified improper substitutions where primary outcomes were overridden by party maneuvers. INEC’s initial resistance in that case underscores its duty to protect monitored results. The NWC’s current approach repeats the same flawed playbook and is likely to fail.
- Breach of Party Autonomy Limits
While parties enjoy some internal autonomy, this is not absolute. It is circumscribed by the Electoral Act and the Constitution. Internal mechanisms, including appeal committees, cannot be weaponised to perpetrate injustice or undermine the democratic process that INEC witnessed.
Strong Warning to the APC NWC
The NWC is hereby strongly and unequivocally warned that proceeding with or defending these substitutions; whether justified by the purported appeal committee recommendations or otherwise, is reckless, legally unsustainable, and in bad faith. It risks:
Mass disqualification of substituted candidates by INEC and the courts.
Pre-election lawsuits that could destabilise the party’s 2027 campaigns.
Further erosion of public trust in the APC’s commitment to internal democracy.
Potential sanctions or contempt proceedings if court orders are defied.
The NWC should immediately withdraw the revised list, that is already being rejected by the INEC and respect the monitored primary winners, and desist from relying on any internal appeal committee as a basis for substitution. Any insistence on this unlawful path demonstrates contempt for the rule of law.
Urgent Demand to INEC
INEC is strongly urged not to accede to the NWC’s request for these substitutions under any guise. INEC must:
Publish and uphold only the candidates who emerged from the monitored primaries.
Reject any list that deviates from the verified results already in its possession, including those purportedly backed by party appeal committees.
Publicly affirm its commitment to the integrity of the primary process as required by law.
Acquiescing to the NWC’s request would make INEC complicit in undermining the Electoral Act and would invite swift judicial intervention.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This attempted substitution, even if clothed in the garb of an appeal committee process, is not a mere internal party affair; it is a direct assault on electoral integrity, fair hearing, and the rule of law. The appeal committee justification is legally bankrupt and must be rejected outright.
This opinion is unequivocal: The substitutions are illegal, the appeal committee recommendations are invalid and of no effect, and they must not be allowed to stand. The APC NWC should retreat immediately, and INEC must stand firm as the guardian of electoral due process.
Any deviation from this position will have far-reaching negative consequences for the credibility of Nigeria’s 2027 electoral cycle and may expose both the party and INEC to legal liability.
Oloriegbe is of The Progressive Counsel (TPC), Nigeria.