The All Progressives Congress (APC) Youth Vanguard has alleged that the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) is planning to substitute the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Shippers Council, Barrister Pius Akutah, as the APC governorship candidate in Benue State.

In a statement issued in Abuja on Monday by its Secretary, Ms. Celestina Adoke, Esq., the group claimed the alleged move was aimed at preventing Governor Hyacinth Alia from exercising his right to seek re-election in the 2027 governorship election.

According to the group, a report is allegedly being prepared to suggest that Akutah appeared before the APC governorship screening committee, which it said screened and cleared Governor Alia, Kuraun Isaac, and Hon. Terwase Orbunde for the party’s primaries.

The APC Youth Vanguard maintained that only the three aspirants participated in and were cleared during the screening exercise conducted by the committee sent from Abuja, alleging that Akutah neither appeared before the panel nor took part in the process.

The group further alleged that any attempt by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, to secure the party’s governorship ticket for Akutah despite his alleged non-participation in the screening and primary process could trigger internal disputes and legal challenges capable of affecting the party’s chances in the general election.

It also claimed that Akutah did not resign from his position as Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Shippers Council within the timeline stipulated for political appointees seeking elective office ahead of the 2027 elections. The group further alleged that Akutah is currently attending an international maritime conference in London while still holding the federal appointment.

Additionally, the group alleged that any attempt to produce a screening committee report indicating that Akutah participated in the screening exercise would be improper and could have adverse consequences for the party.

The APC Youth Vanguard called on President Bola Tinubu to intervene by cautioning the APC National Chairman, Professor Nentawe Yilwatda, and members of the party’s National Working Committee against what it described as an illegal move in Benue State.

The Zamfara precedent should have been the loudest warning bell any political party could ever receive, yet it appears certain actors within the Benue APC either forgot the lesson or simply believed they were above it. In 2019, the All Progressives Congress swept every single elective position in Zamfara State, only to watch the courts strip the party of every seat won because of unresolved primaries controversies. That singular event remains one of the most painful lessons in the history of Nigerian party politics, a case where victory at the polls meant nothing because the party failed to settle its internal disputes before facing the electorate. It is what many now call the successful defeat, a party that won everything and lost everything in one court pronouncement.

It was precisely to avoid a repeat of that disaster that the APC strengthened its Appeal Committee, a body vested with the responsibility of reviewing complaints arising from primaries and resolving them with finality. This committee exists as the internal safeguard, the mechanism meant to catch and correct every irregularity before matters spiral into litigation that could embarrass the party nationally.

Going into the 2026 primaries, the APC made its position unmistakably clear. Results were not to be announced at state level. Everything was to be centrally coordinated and released only after all controversies had been addressed. This was not a suggestion, it was policy.

Yet in Benue, officials who supervised the primaries were allegedly pressured into announcing results prematurely, in open defiance of that directive and amid credible evidence of misconduct. This was done by elements who apparently regard presidential directives as optional suggestions rather than binding instructions from the leader of their own party.

It must be recalled that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had personally intervened in the Benue APC crisis and handed down a clear directive: all elected officials of the party were to be returned automatically, unopposed and undisturbed. Chief Hyacinth Iormem Alia, a governor once described by Chief Gabriel Suswam as more powerful than God, appeared emboldened rather than restrained by that intervention. Rather than comply, he reportedly dismissed the presidential directive as mere prayers, fielded his own preferred candidates, and proceeded to manipulate the outcome of the primaries in his favour.

What followed was the proper constitutional response within the party structure. Appeals were filed before the Appeal Committee. Upon due consideration of the evidence, the committee ordered rectifications and forwarded fresh names to the Independent National Electoral Commission. It bears emphasis that those so called new names are not strangers to the party. They are the very officials the president had directed should be automatically returned. Their restoration, and the consequent removal of Alia’s placeholders, is not an act of party disloyalty. It is an act that vindicates internal discipline, protects the party’s transparency, and honours the chain of authority from the presidency downward.

Having taken that decision, the APC owes itself, and every Nigerian who still believes in due process, the duty to stand firmly behind the Appeal Committee’s verdict. Any pressure to reverse or dilute a decision that is already in effect would amount to inviting the ghost of Zamfara back into the room, only this time in Benue. The party constitution says the party is supreme. Benue should not be the state where that supremacy is tested and found wanting.

By Abigail David

Barely four months after unveiling its revised timetable for the 2027 general elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is facing a series of legal battles that could significantly shape the country’s electoral process.

At least six cases before the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal are challenging INEC’s powers, the legality of its election timetable, and the status of some political parties. The outcomes are expected to determine the commission’s authority under the Electoral Act and decide which political parties will be eligible to participate in the 2027 polls.

Under INEC’s election schedule, political parties have completed their primaries, while the submission of presidential and National Assembly candidates closes on July 11. Campaigns are scheduled to begin on August 19, with presidential and National Assembly elections fixed for January 16, 2027, and governorship and state assembly elections slated for February 6.

Major Court Battles

The Youth Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) separately challenged aspects of INEC’s revised timetable, arguing that some deadlines conflict with provisions of the Electoral Act.

In both cases, the Federal High Court ruled that while INEC has the constitutional authority to organise elections and issue guidelines, it cannot alter timelines expressly provided by law. Portions of the timetable relating to candidate nomination, withdrawal and substitution were consequently invalidated.

INEC has appealed both judgments, insisting that its election timetable is an integrated framework designed to ensure a smooth electoral process and that removing individual timelines could disrupt preparations for the 2027 elections.

The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in both appeals.

Political Parties Face Deregistration Battle

Another major legal dispute involves a Federal High Court judgment ordering INEC to deregister five political parties—the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord, Action Alliance (AA), Action People’s Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

However, the Court of Appeal has stayed the execution of the judgment pending the determination of appeals filed by the affected parties, allowing them to continue operating for now.

The appeals have been adjourned until July 14, 2026, for further proceedings.

NDC Registration Under Scrutiny

Another pending suit challenges the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), with the plaintiff asking the court to determine whether the party was lawfully registered in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions.

The case remains before the Federal High Court, and its outcome could determine whether the party retains its legal status before the publication of INEC’s final list of candidates.

Experts Warn of Possible Uncertainty

Legal experts and political analysts have cautioned that delays in resolving the pending cases could create uncertainty for political parties and affect preparations for the 2027 elections.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Bankole Akomolafe, said INEC acted prudently by accepting nominations from all political parties while awaiting final court decisions, noting that the commission could later exclude any party affected by court judgments.

Political scientist Prof. Gbade Ojo described the situation as a growing concern, warning that unresolved legal disputes and internal crises within political parties could undermine confidence in the electoral process.

Similarly, Prof. Oluwafemi Obayori of Lagos State University urged the judiciary to conclude all election-related cases well before the polls, stressing that issues affecting the legality of the electoral process should not remain unresolved close to election day.

INEC Remains Confident

Despite the ongoing litigation, INEC says it remains committed to its timetable and will continue preparations unless directed otherwise by the courts.

INEC National Commissioner Mohammed Kudu Haruna said political parties have already concluded their primaries and are expected to submit the names of their candidates before the July 11 deadline.

He added that the commission would comply with any court judgment once delivered but would continue implementing its election schedule while awaiting the courts’ final decisions.

According to Haruna, INEC will review any judgment collectively before determining its next course of action, expressing confidence that the judiciary will deliver its rulings in good time to prevent constitutional or electoral complications.