2027 Oredo Federal Seat: Ogbeide-Ihama Challenges Omosigho’s NDC Ticket, Alleges Dual Primary Participation in Fresh Court Filing

... Alleges Dual Primary Participation, Substitution Issues in Fresh Court Filing

By Genesis Ogiri

ABUJA — The unfolding legal contest over the 2027 Oredo Federal Constituency seat in Edo State has assumed a fresh dimension, following the filing of a Further and Better Affidavit by Dr. Igbinosa Ogbeide-Ihama, in which he mounted a comprehensive challenge to the nomination of Hon. Frank Uyi Omosigho as the candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).

The process, filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, forms part of the proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/C8/1859/2026 — Dr. Igbinosa Ogbeide-Ihama v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), NDC & Hon. Frank Uyi Omosigho. Ogbeide-Ihama, through his solicitors, Impact Solicitors & Co. Law Firm, is asking the court to invalidate Omosigho’s nomination and determine his own claim to the NDC ticket arising from the party primary conducted in May 2026.

At the heart of the fresh processes is an allegation that Omosigho participated in primary elections conducted by two different political parties within a nine-day interval. Ogbeide-Ihama alleged that Omosigho first contested the APC primary for Oredo East Constituency on May 20, 2026, before subsequently emerging in connection with the NDC primary for Oredo Federal Constituency held on May 29, 2026. The plaintiff contends that the circumstances surrounding the alleged dual participation raise substantial questions concerning Omosigho’s eligibility and the validity of his subsequent nomination.

Ogbeide-Ihama further averred that the NDC primary held on May 29 at the Oredo Local Government Headquarters in Benin City was the legitimate primary in which he participated and emerged with the majority of delegate votes. He alleged, however, that the party failed to publish the result and subsequently uploaded Omosigho’s name on the INEC portal on August 1, 2026, which he characterised as an unlawful substitution of the candidate produced by the primary election.

The plaintiff also placed before the court materials which he said demonstrate Omosigho’s prior participation in the APC primary. According to the affidavit, Omosigho allegedly polled 69 votes, while Ede Edebiri Edwin recorded 3,120 votes in the APC contest. Ogbeide-Ihama said video recordings, documentary evidence and campaign materials had been exhibited to substantiate his allegations concerning Omosigho’s political activities during the period in question.

Beyond the alleged dual participation, Ogbeide-Ihama mounted a direct challenge to the documentary basis of Omosigho’s purported victory in the NDC primary. He disputed a result summary allegedly showing that Omosigho secured 2,182 votes, contending that multiple documents relating to the same primary contain material inconsistencies. He therefore urged the court to compel the production of what he described as the authentic primary result sheet and the official monitoring report generated from the exercise.

The plaintiff also took issue with INEC’s refusal, according to his deposition, to furnish him with certified true copies of the May 29 primary result sheet and monitoring report despite separate requests. He argued that INEC, having monitored the primary election, was particularly positioned to produce the official electoral records. Ogbeide-Ihama consequently invited the court to consider the evidentiary implications of the alleged withholding of relevant documents under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act.

On the preliminary objections challenging the competence of the action, Ogbeide-Ihama maintained that his suit, instituted on August 13, 2026, was filed within the applicable statutory period. He relied, among other authorities, on the Supreme Court decision in Karshi v. Gwagwa (2022), arguing that where the gravamen of a pre-election dispute is an alleged substitution, the operative date for determining limitation should be the date on which the substituted name was published or uploaded, rather than the date of the primary election itself.

The plaintiff equally challenged the evidentiary competence of an affidavit sworn by Yusuf Hassan Oyeyemi in support of Omosigho’s preliminary objection. Ogbeide-Ihama alleged that the deponent, being a lawyer within the chambers of Omosigho’s counsel, lacked personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the disputed primary and therefore questioned the probative value of the depositions contained in the affidavit.

On the substantive legal questions, Ogbeide-Ihama is asking the court to determine whether Omosigho satisfied the statutory and party requirements for participation in the NDC primary, particularly in light of the plaintiff’s allegation that he had previously contested an APC primary during the same electoral cycle. He also contends that the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act provide a statutory basis for an aspirant who alleges substantial non-compliance with electoral law and party guidelines to seek judicial intervention.

Consequently, the plaintiff is seeking several reliefs, including the dismissal of the preliminary objections filed by INEC and Omosigho; an order compelling INEC and the NDC to produce the authentic May 29 primary result and monitoring report; a judicial determination of Omosigho’s eligibility; and an order nullifying his nomination. Ogbeide-Ihama is further asking the court to declare him the validly nominated NDC candidate for Oredo Federal Constituency and direct INEC to upload his name accordingly.

The allegations contained in the Further and Better Affidavit constitute claims advanced by the plaintiff and remain subject to judicial determination. The respondents’ positions and the evidence ultimately placed before the court will form part of the proceedings in determining the validity of the competing claims.

The matter is scheduled for October 5, 2026, when the Federal High Court is expected to hear the pending applications in the suit.