Abejoye Sues INEC, NDC for Replacing Candidate’s Name  in Lagos

Wale Igbintade

A politician and businessman, Hon. Pratt Tunde, has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to urgently hear his pre-election suit during the ongoing annual court vacation, alleging that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) secretly replaced his name with that of another aspirant on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) portal.

The matter, filed in Suit No: FHC/LAG/PREM/19/2026, is before Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

Tunde, also known as Pratt Akintunde Bababunmi, is asking the court to grant leave for the suit to be heard and determined during the court vacation, arguing that any delay could render his case nugatory because of the constitutional time limit governing pre-election matters.

The defendants in the suit are the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Sanni Kamurdeen Olatunji, and INEC.

In a motion ex parte filed by his lawyer, Chief Ajose Abejoye, the plaintiff urged the court to hear the matter urgently, and if possible, on a day-to-day basis, to prevent the statutory lifespan of the case from expiring.

He relied on Order 46 Rule 5 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, paragraph 6 of the Pre-Election Practice Directions 2026 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

According to his lawyer, the matter is extremely urgent because Section 285(10) of the 1999 Constitution requires pre-election cases to be heard and determined within 180 days.

He argued that allowing the annual court vacation to consume part of the constitutionally prescribed period could ultimately deprive the plaintiff of an effective judicial remedy.

Tunde alleged in his affidavit that on August 1, 2026, the NDC unlawfully and secretly removed his name and uploaded the name of the second respondent, Sanni Kamurdeen Olatunji, on the INEC portal as the candidate for the Lagos Mainland federal constituency.

He described the alleged substitution as an action capable of causing serious and irreversible political consequences if not promptly addressed by the court.

The plaintiff further alleged that while the court remained on vacation, Olatunji was campaigning using what he described as his mandate.

He claimed that the development had caused him “permanent political, psychological and financial ruin”, and urged the court to intervene before the electoral process reached a stage where any eventual judgment would become ineffective.

A major concern raised by Tunde was the possibility that INEC could proceed with the production of final ballot papers bearing the name of the disputed candidate.

He stated that if the court failed to hear the case immediately, INEC could print the ballot papers with Olatunji’s name, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for a subsequent judgment in his favour to provide an effective remedy.

The plaintiff maintained that hearing the matter during the vacation would not prejudice the respondents, contending that the primary evidence and relevant electronic records were already available.

He, therefore, urged Justice Aluko to assign the matter for immediate hearing in the interest of justice.

In the written address filed in support of the application, Tunde’s legal team submitted that Order 46 Rule 5 of the Federal High Court Rules empowers a Vacation Judge to hear an urgent matter where the circumstances warrant it.

Counsel argued that the alleged substitution of a candidate in a pre-election dispute constituted an exceptionally urgent circumstance requiring the court to depart from the normal vacation schedule.

The lawyers also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Marwa vs. Nyako, contending that constitutional time limits governing electoral disputes could not be extended by the courts.

They argued that because the 180-day period prescribed for the determination of pre-election matters is strict, the court should ensure that the matter is heard without delay.

The written address identified a single issue for determination: whether the plaintiff/applicant could bring an application to have the suit heard during the annual vacation of the Federal High Court.

Tunde’s lawyers urged the court to answer the question in the affirmative and grant the application for an expedited hearing.

The application is coming against the backdrop of preparations for the forthcoming general election, with Tunde contending that the disputed nomination must be resolved before the electoral process advances beyond the point at which the court can grant an effective remedy.

He is consequently asking the court to allow the substantive pre-election dispute to proceed during the vacation rather than wait for the regular judicial calendar to resume.