₦airaland Forum

S.35 ELECTORAL ACT 2022 (AS AMENDED) voids the nomination of a candidate "who knowingly allows himself to be nominated by more than one political party".
Now that Adeleke has been nominated by more than one political party can Adeleke return as Osun State Governor in the 2026 Osun State Governorship Election? 🧐

Does Any constitution working in Nigeria??

zoedew:
S.35 ELECTORAL ACT 2022 (AS AMENDED) voids the nomination of a candidate "who knowingly allows himself to be nominated by more than one political party".
Now that Adeleke has been nominated by more than one political party can Adeleke return as Osun State Governor in the 2026 Osun State Governorship Election? 🧐

I do not think we understand what that section says but the aggrieved can approach the courts for more interpretation.

Like I have explained here.... Ademola Adeleke was nominated once in the Primary of Accord Party where he is the flag bearer. In the PDP, he went through the screening process and withdrew from the Primary and rightly so.

In the case between APP Vs Uche Nwosu, the Supreme Court clearly defined and described what nomination in this context entails.... The Apex Court was emphatic that nomination here means:- the emergence of that candidate in a well-conducted Primary.

Previous decisions of the Supreme Court have outlined nomination as an aspirant of any political party. In Professor Onyebuchi Chukwu Vs David Nweze Umahi and Shinkafi Vs Yari. The Court held that an aspirant who desires an intention to run for office must:-
1. Purchase the Expression of Interest & Nomination forms
2. Undergo physical screening successfully at party level.
3. Physically participate and be present on the day of the Primary.

"By the provision in Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) it is an aggrieved aspirant who physically participated in a primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of his party that is imbued with the locus standi to raise a finger of complaint... The Appellant admitted that he did not participate in the primary. He is not an aspirant in terms of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act. He is not imbued with the locus standi to challenge the said primary." per Rhodes-Vivour JSC (Frank Okon Daniel Vs INEC & Ors 2015)

I do not think Adeleke was present on that day of the PDP Primary! Infact, he resigned on November 4.

fergie001:
I do not think we understand what that section says but the aggrieved can approach the courts for more interpretation.

Like I have explained here.... Ademola Adeleke was nominated once in the Primary of Accord Party where he is the flag bearer. In the PDP, he went through the screening process and withdrew from the Primary and rightly so.

In the case between APP Vs Uche Nwosu, the Supreme Court clearly defined and described what nomination in this context entails.... The Apex Court was emphatic that nomination here means:- the emergence of that candidate in a well-conducted Primary.

Previous decisions of the Supreme Court have outlined nomination as an aspirant of any political party. In Professor Onyebuchi Chukwu Vs David Nweze Umahi and Shinkafi Vs Yari. The Court held that an aspirant who desires an intention to run for office must:-
1. Purchase the Expression of Interest & Nomination forms
2. Undergo physical screening successfully at party level.
3. Physically participate and be present on the day of the Primary.

"By the provision in Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) it is an aggrieved aspirant who physically participated in a primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of his party that is imbued with the locus standi to raise a finger of complaint... The Appellant admitted that he did not participate in the primary. He is not an aspirant in terms of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act. He is not imbued with the locus standi to challenge the said primary." per Rhodes-Vivour JSC (Frank Okon Daniel Vs INEC & Ors 2015)

I do not think Adeleke was present on that day of the PDP Primary! Infact, he resigned on November 4.

The Same act gives an exception if there is crisis within a party it is possible to switch,in this case the Governor is right he can’t gamble which faction Inec will eventually accept

fergie001:
I do not think we understand what that section says but the aggrieved can approach the courts for more interpretation.

Like I have explained here.... Ademola Adeleke was nominated once in the Primary of Accord Party where he is the flag bearer. In the PDP, he went through the screening process and withdrew from the Primary and rightly so.

In the case between APP Vs Uche Nwosu, the Supreme Court clearly defined and described what nomination in this context entails.... The Apex Court was emphatic that nomination here means:- the emergence of that candidate in a well-conducted Primary.

Previous decisions of the Supreme Court have outlined nomination as an aspirant of any political party. In Professor Onyebuchi Chukwu Vs David Nweze Umahi and Shinkafi Vs Yari. The Court held that an aspirant who desires an intention to run for office must:-
1. Purchase the Expression of Interest & Nomination forms
2. Undergo physical screening successfully at party level.
3. Physically participate and be present on the day of the Primary.

"By the provision in Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) it is an aggrieved aspirant who physically participated in a primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of his party that is imbued with the locus standi to raise a finger of complaint... The Appellant admitted that he did not participate in the primary. He is not an aspirant in terms of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act. He is not imbued with the locus standi to challenge the said primary." per Rhodes-Vivour JSC (Frank Okon Daniel Vs INEC & Ors 2015)

I do not think Adeleke was present on that day of the PDP Primary! Infact, he resigned on November 4.

Great one! If he was absent and did not participate in the primaries and did not receive the certificate nominating him as the PDP candidate then he is good to go. His traducers might challenge his position in court though .