Oredo 2027: Three Fresh Processes Filed as Constitutional Lawyer Says INEC Needs No Fresh Order to Delist Unregistered Members

By Genesis ogiri Abuja | October 1st,  2026

ABUJA — The legal battle over the NDC candidacy for Oredo Federal Constituency has intensified, with Dr. Igbinosa Ogbeide-Ihama filing three fresh processes before the Federal High Court, Abuja, as constitutional lawyer Liborous Oshoma, argues that INEC requires no further judicial order to act against persons whose names were not contained in the party’s statutory membership register.

The development concerns Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1859/2026, in which Ogbeide-Ihama is challenging the nomination of Hon. Frank Uyi Omosigho as the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate for the constituency. The latest processes, filed through Impact Solicitors & Co., led by Benjamin S. Kargbo, Esq., seek to fortify the claimant’s case on party membership, primary-election eligibility, alleged participation in multiple primaries and compliance with the Electoral Act 2026.

In the first process, a Reply on Points of Law to INEC’s Preliminary Objection, Ogbeide-Ihama contends that the Commission has not sufficiently answered the material facts raised in his Counter-Affidavit. Central to the contention is whether Omosigho was a duly registered member of the NDC as at May 29, 2026, when the party conducted its primary, and whether his name appeared on the membership register transmitted to INEC as prescribed by Sections 77(5) and 77(6) of the Electoral Act 2026.

The claimant also alleges that Omosigho participated in the APC primary for Oredo East Constituency on May 20, 2026, before participating in the NDC primary nine days later. Ogbeide-Ihama’s case is that participation in two primary elections within the same electoral cycle constitutes a statutory disqualifying circumstance, thereby rendering any nomination purportedly derived from the latter primary legally vulnerable.

Another plank of the challenge relates to Omosigho’s alleged defection from the APC to the NDC. The claimant relies on the Votes and Proceedings of the Edo State House of Assembly, which he says show that the purported defection letter was declined for failure to comply with the applicable constitutional and procedural requirements. He argues that the documentary record raises a substantial question as to the legal efficacy of the alleged defection and Omosigho’s membership status at the material time.

The claimant has further challenged the alleged non-production of the Certified True Copy of the NDC primary result and membership register, despite formal applications for the documents. He invokes Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, contending that where a party withholds evidence capable of being produced, the court may, in appropriate circumstances, draw an adverse presumption. His counsel also relies on authorities including Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd v. Seplat Petroleum Development Company Plc (2016) and Amaechi v. INEC (2008) in urging the court to prioritise substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

The second process responds to the Counter-Affidavit opposing Ogbeide-Ihama’s Motion for Amendment and Extension of Time. Relying on Order 17 of the Federal High Court Rules 2019 and the relevant provisions of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions 2026, the claimant argues that the proposed amendment is intended to bring the material facts and issues in controversy within the proper forensic compass of the proceedings. He also contends that his cause of action crystallised on August 1, 2026, when INEC published Omosigho’s name as the NDC candidate, rather than on June 22, and that the suit filed on August 13 was therefore commenced within time.

Ogbeide-Ihama has additionally challenged the competence of an affidavit allegedly sworn by counsel within the chambers of Omosigho’s lawyer, relying on Akinlade v. INEC (2020) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1754) and the applicable provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2023. The claimant maintains that the evidentiary competence of the affidavit is a threshold issue capable of affecting the weight and admissibility of the material placed before the court.

The litigation has assumed wider jurisprudential significance following the September 24, 2026 Supreme Court judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, SC/CR/495/2026, which, according to reports of the decision, restored the operation of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after setting aside the Court of Appeal judgment. The provisions have direct relevance to the legal framework governing party membership registers and the nomination of candidates for elective office.

It is against this backdrop that Liborous Oshoma, in commentary circulated through Arise News and social media, argued that INEC does not require another judicial order before acting within the scope of its statutory powers against persons whose names were allegedly absent from the membership register submitted by their political party. His position has introduced an additional legal dimension to the Oredo controversy, although the precise application of the Supreme Court’s judgment to Omosigho’s individual circumstances remains for judicial determination.

Ogbeide-Ihama is consequently asking the Federal High Court to dismiss INEC’s Preliminary Objection, grant his application for amendment, compel INEC and the NDC to produce the authentic May 29 primary result and applicable membership register, and grant consequential reliefs arising from the alleged statutory infractions. 

He is further seeking an order nullifying Omosigho’s nomination and a declaration that he is the validly nominated NDC candidate for Oredo Federal Constituency. The matter is expected to come up on October 5, 2026, when the court is expected to further consider the Preliminary Objection and the application for amendment. Until the court pronounces on the specific issues in FHC/ABJ/CS/1859/2026, the competing claims remain subject to judicial adjudication.