The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is fighting a two-front war of its own making. Having conducted primaries across the federation, the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) moved to replace a swath of candidates before final submission to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and in doing so, triggered litigation from its own governors, aggrieved aspirants, and rival parties. All of it converges on one question: does the APC have the legal room to rewrite its primary outcomes?
What began as internal party grumbling has hardened into a full-blown constitutional and statutory contest, now before the Federal High Court, with INEC itself effectively siding against the party it is meant to regulate.

Mapping the Fallout: Nine States, Dozens of Casualties

INEC records show a significant number of Senatorial and House of Representatives candidates who won APC primaries in May were substituted before the final list reached the commission. Aggrieved aspirants allege the changes favoured influential party leaders and senior political office holders, with some claiming officials exploited the window between the conclusion of primaries and submission of names to alter the original list.
The affected senatorial districts and constituencies span nine states: Abia, Benue, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kogi, Kwara, Niger, Ondo and Taraba. Among the casualties: former Governor and Senator Gabriel Suswam, who had earlier emerged as APC’s Benue North-East (Zone A) senatorial candidate, and House member Gbenga Elegbeleye, previously the party’s Ondo North senatorial candidate.
The internal alarm reached the presidency early. Fourteen prominent APC stakeholders — including sitting senators and former lawmakers appealed to President Tinubu and the NWC to intervene in what they described as a deepening internal crisis.

The Party’s Defence

APC spokesman Felix Morka has mounted a public rebuttal. He says the NWC received more than 720 petitions from aspirants after the primaries, which were reviewed by appeal committees before recommendations went to the National Working Committee — which then re-evaluated the cases itself before approving changes.
Morka rejects claims that tickets went to non-participants, saying he is unaware of any case where someone who never bought forms or was never screened was suddenly handed a ticket while conceding that losing aspirants naturally have reason to be dissatisfied. His central argument is procedural: that a primary election “is a process, not an event,” and that the appeal mechanism is an integral part of that process rather than an invention to cause mischief.
Beyond individual states, the party told INEC the National Assembly changes stemmed from recommendations of its Primary Election Appeal Committee following resolution of petitions. The NWC’s transmittal letter framed the changes as the party’s “final position,” citing compliance with “the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended).”
That citation may itself be a problem the process is now governed by the Electoral Act 2026, not 2022, and the mismatch could become a legal vulnerability in its own right.

The Legal Fault Line

Critics counter that the appeal-committee route is itself the problem. Legal practitioners and affected aspirants argue the substitutions contravene Section 33 of the Electoral Act, which permits candidate changes only in cases of death or voluntary withdrawal and that the process may separately breach the right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Roughly 26 National Assembly candidates are said to be affected by this dispute alone, prompting development partners to caution INEC chairman Amupitan against letting internal party appeal committees become a backdoor to rewrite primary outcomes.
That caution has since become litigation. APC state governors have gone to the Federal High Court, dragging both the NWC and INEC into court over the substitution of 26 legislative candidates nationwide, securing an interim injunction from Justice Ekwo in mid-July. In Benue and Ondo, aggrieved candidates are separately seeking court orders restraining APC from substituting candidates they say were validly nominated through the party’s June 29 correspondence to INEC — with insiders warning the suit could force fresh primaries or candidate-list changes ahead of 2027.

A Widening Judicial Backdrop

The substitution fight is unfolding against a broader battle over INEC’s own election timetable. In May, Justice Umar voided INEC’s compressed deadlines, ruling the commission cannot abridge the 120-day statutory window for submitting candidate particulars under Section 29(1), and — citing Section 31 — lacks power to shorten the 90-day period parties have to withdraw and substitute candidates. Justice Omotosho separately ordered INEC to amend its timetable to conform with the Electoral Act on membership registers and candidate substitution.
However, the Court of Appeal, ruling on INEC’s appeal, vacated the judgment that had nullified the electoral body’s 2027 timelines — adding another layer of procedural uncertainty to an already tangled picture.

Case Study: FHC/ABJ/CS/1429/2026 The Benue and Ondo Suit

In a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1429/2026, Engr. Sesugh Kaaba and other aggrieved APC candidates from Benue State (loyalists of Governor Hyacinth Alia), commenced action against the APC and INEC. Ondo plaintiffs joined the same fight, naming Gbenga Elegbeleye, Dr. Taiwo Fasoranti, and several House aspirants replaced in the NWC’s revised list.
The plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether, under Sections 6(1) and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Sections 29(1), 33(1), 84(1)–(2), 86, 87 and 88(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, the APC could — through its June 29, 2026 correspondence or any other — substitute validly nominated candidates absent voluntary withdrawal, death, or disqualification.
They sought a declaration that any such substitution is null and void, and an order compelling APC and INEC to recognise the original primary winners — among them Rev. Fr. Dr. Hyacinth Alia (Governorship), Senator Gabriel Suswam, Benjamin Terseer Aber, and Francis Otta Agbo, alongside a full slate of House of Representatives including Engr. David Terhemba Nongo and 32 House of Assembly candidates.
Interim relief: Before the substantive hearing, Justice Inyang Ekwo issued a preservative order directing the parties to maintain the status quo ante, holding that once issues were joined — particularly with INEC before the court — the defendants were bound by law to preserve the subject matter. It was, he told counsel, “not a matter of advice but of law.” APC and INEC were restrained from any action capable of altering the disputed candidate list pending determination of the substantive suit.

The Core Statutory Provision

Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2026 states plainly that a party may not change or substitute a submitted candidate except in the case of death or withdrawal by the candidate. A legal commentator summarised the practical effect: once a party submits its list to INEC, substitution is strictly limited to death or voluntary written withdrawal, and a fresh primary must follow within 14 days of a valid withdrawal.
On its face, this is the plaintiffs’ whole case – the NWC’s “appeal committee” mechanism is not one of the two statutory grounds.

The Plaintiffs’ Dual-Track Argument

Beyond the bare statutory point, the plaintiffs are stacking a due-process claim on top of it: that overturning a delegate-certified, INEC-monitored primary through an internal appeal panel could violate the fair-hearing guarantee under Section 36, since the original winners were displaced without an adversarial hearing. In Benue, plaintiffs went further, framing the NWC’s move as “an unconstitutional subversion of the Electoral Act.”
This combination of statutory violation plus constitutional fair-hearing violation gives the court two independent grounds to rule against APC, even should one theory falter.

INEC’s Position: An Unusual Alignment

In its affidavit filed July 5 in reply to the originating summons, INEC threw its weight behind the plaintiffs, telling the court that those listed in the suit had emerged winners at APC’s Benue primaries which it monitored but were illegally substituted.
The affidavit, deposed by Ayuba Mohammed of INEC’s litigation and prosecution department, argued that granting the plaintiffs’ application would serve the interest of justice and spare the commission “needless litigation arising from unjustified substitution of candidates.” INEC counsel Oluwole Olukunle told the court the commission is constitutionally bound to defend the integrity of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, and that parties, while free to nominate candidates of their choice, must do so within their own constitutions, INEC guidelines, and the law.
Olukunle’s submission distilled the commission’s broader philosophy: “The law now has long moved away from the era where political parties exercised unquestionable discretion in the selection and random/arbitrary substitution of candidates. Aspirants who emerge victorious at party primaries monitored by INEC automatically become candidates of the party at such elections.”

The Weight of Precedent

The plaintiffs’ position draws support from two Supreme Court authorities:
Abdulazeez v. Shittu (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 293 (SC) where it held that a claimant to a party’s candidacy must show he was an aspirant in an INEC-monitored primary in which he scored the highest votes.
Nongo v. Achado & Ors (2023) LPELR-60110(SC) wherein the court held that under Section 84(5)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Act 2022, a party is bound to forward the name of the aspirant with the highest votes to INEC, a duty that admits no discretion.

The Precedent That Cuts Both Ways: Machina v. Lawan (2023)

This is the case every lawyer in the dispute is watching, and it does not sit neatly on either side.
Bashir Machina won an INEC-monitored APC primary in Yobe North in 2022. The party nonetheless submitted Senate President Ahmad Lawan’s name instead, after Lawan lost the presidential primary and a second, uncancelled Senate primary was hastily organised to produce him. The Federal High Court and Court of Appeal both sided with Machina, but the Supreme Court reversed in a split decision of 3–2, not on the merits of who actually won, but on a procedural technicality: the majority held that Machina’s fraud allegations should have been filed by writ of summons rather than originating summons, since fraud requires oral evidence and cross-examination.
The two dissenting justices, Adamu Jauro and Emmanuel Agim, held that Machina was lawfully nominated, reasoning that the party’s second primary was an unlawful, uncancelled duplicate in breach of Section 285 of the Constitution.
For APC, the majority decision shows the Supreme Court has previously let a substitution stand over the will of a certified primary — on procedural grounds. If the current plaintiffs’ pleadings touch on “fraud” or bad faith by the NWC, APC’s lawyers will likely move to strike on the same originating-summons technicality that defeated Machina.
For the plaintiffs, the substantive reasoning in the Machina dissent — that a party cannot informally re-run or override a lawfully conducted, INEC-monitored primary was never rejected on the merits, only sidestepped procedurally. That reasoning, they argue, remains good law to build on.

What’s at Stake

Three threads converge here, and all three will shape how the litigation plays out:
The statutory question is whether an internal appeal-committee mechanism can lawfully stand in for the narrow death-or-withdrawal grounds Section 33 provides.
The procedural question is whether Machina-style technicalities over originating summons versus writ of summons will again decide a case on form rather than substance.
The institutional question is INEC’s unusually open alignment with the plaintiffs against a party it is meant to regulate neutrally, and what that signals for how the commission intends to police future substitutions ahead of 2027.
With an interim injunction in place and the substantive suit still to be heard, the APC’s candidate list for several National Assembly seats and possibly the broader question of how much discretion parties retain over their own primaries now rests with the Federal High Court.

By Terver Akase, PhD

In every democracy, there are public figures whose careers are defined not merely by the offices they occupy, but by the intensity of the battles they are compelled to fight. History shows that the higher a public servant rises, the greater the scrutiny, controversy and, sometimes, calculated hostility that follow.

Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate for the 2027 Benue State election, belongs unmistakably to that category.

For more than three decades in public life, as legal practitioner, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, businessman and statesman, Aondoakaa has remained one of the most scrutinized public figures to emerge from Benue State. Yet, despite the relentless allegations, sensational headlines and coordinated political attacks that have trailed him over the years, one fact has remained remarkably constant: Aondoakaa has never been invited by any of the investigative agencies on accusations of corruption, or arraigned before any court on such accusations, and no court of competent jurisdiction has convicted him of corruption or any criminal offence.

That distinction is significant in a country where many public officials have either been convicted, entered plea bargains, or remain entangled in criminal prosecutions years after leaving office.

Aondoakaa’s story is therefore not merely about controversy. It is also about resilience.

A Career Shadowed by Allegations

Few Nigerian public officials have had their names associated with as many politically charged controversies as Aondoakaa.

During and after his tenure as Attorney-General of the Federation between 2007 and 2010, his critics linked him to virtually every major legal or political controversy of the era.

His name featured prominently in discussions surrounding the Halliburton bribery scandal involving contracts for the Nigeria LNG project. It must be stated that Aondoakaa was no longer the Attorney General of the Federation when Halliburton agreed to pay a $35 million settlement to the Nigerian government in December 2010 to drop all bribery charges related to the Bonny Island natural gas project.

His name was equally mentioned in public debates surrounding the controversial Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID) arbitration against Nigeria. What his detractors do not want to acknowledge in their recycled scripts is that he was rather co-opted into the Federal Government’s legal team, on the instructions of the then President Muhammadu Buhari.

Years later, during the #EndSARS protests, social media campaigns accused him of being hired to facilitate the freezing of bank accounts belonging to protest supporters.

Before and after these episodes, he was repeatedly accused of shielding politically exposed persons from prosecution, frustrating anti-corruption efforts and protecting influential business interests.

On paper, the list appears overwhelming. Yet, the more important question has always been this: what became of these allegations?

The Difference Between Allegation and Proof

One of the enduring challenges of Nigeria’s political culture is the tendency to elevate allegations into verdicts before evidence is tested.

In Aondoakaa’s case, many accusations generated dramatic newspaper headlines and television debates. Far fewer produced judicial findings.

Indeed, despite years of investigations, petitions, media campaigns and political attacks, no court has found him guilty of corruption.

That reality deserves emphasis because constitutional democracy is founded on evidence, not accusation.

The legal principle that every citizen remains innocent until proven guilty exists precisely to prevent political rivalry from becoming a substitute for justice.
In Aondoakaa’s case, critics have often supplied allegations.
The courts have supplied no conviction.

The Pfizer Episode

Perhaps no episode illustrates the intensity of the campaigns against Aondoakaa more than the Pfizer litigation.

At the time, the Federal Government and Kano State were pursuing legal action over the controversial Trovan drug trial conducted during the meningitis epidemic of that year.

International media reports at the time disclosed that investigators working on behalf of Pfizer allegedly sought information that could weaken Aondoakaa’s position while litigation over the controversial Trovan clinical trials was ongoing. Despite sustained media attacks, the litigation ultimately culminated in compensation for affected Nigerian families under the negotiated settlement framework, demonstrating that public campaigns and legal outcomes are not always the same thing. It is important to stress that the compensation of $175,000 to each of the affected families was made by the company directly to Kano State Government on behalf of the victims, and not through Aondoakaa or the Federal Ministry of Justice.

The outcome demonstrated that intense media attacks do not necessarily determine the merits of a legal dispute.

In 2010, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) suspended Aondoakaa’s use of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria following disciplinary proceedings. The sanction, however, was not permanent. Upon the expiration of the suspension, his rank was restored in accordance with the Committee’s processes. The episode illustrates that professional disciplinary proceedings have defined legal consequences and cannot be equated with a criminal conviction.

The episode reflected the reality that disciplinary measures within professional bodies, like judicial proceedings, are subject to established procedures rather than political passions.

The Politics of Recycling Old Allegations

As the 2027 governorship contest gathers momentum in Benue State, an unmistakable pattern has emerged.

Many of the allegations dominating political conversations today are not new discoveries.
They are old accusations, some dating back nearly two decades that have simply been dusted off and presented as though they were fresh revelations.

The Halliburton matter.
The Ibori controversy.
The P&ID arbitration.
The Sunrise Power dispute. The Pfizer litigation.
The Zaki-Biam compensation issue.
The #EndSARS allegation.
The SAN suspension. All went the same way.
Aondoakaa eventually vindicated!

Most recently came the claim that the Supreme Court had permanently barred Aondoakaa from contesting public office. That assertion quickly collapsed under legal scrutiny. In Michael K. Aondoakaa, SAN v. Emmanuel Bassey Obot & Anor (SC.939/2015, judgment delivered on 10 December 2021), the Supreme Court did not disqualify him from holding public office. Indeed, in her concurring opinion, Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JSC, expressly observed that “the issue of qualification for holding the office of the 2nd Respondent or any other public office does not arise.” The constitutional qualifications and disqualifications for the office of governor remain those expressly contained in Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

In every constitutional democracy, allegations, even repeated ones, cannot substitute for proof. The criminal justice system is founded on the presumption of innocence, requiring that guilt be established by competent judicial process rather than public speculation or political propaganda.

The claim by political opponents has reinforced an increasingly familiar pattern: sensational allegations are circulated with confidence, only to lose force when subjected to careful legal examination.

Public Service Under Extraordinary Pressure

Serving as Attorney-General of the Federation during one of Nigeria’s most politically turbulent periods meant that virtually every major constitutional dispute eventually landed on Aondoakaa’s desk.

No Attorney-General can satisfy every political constituency. Many decisions inevitably create winners and losers. Some controversies surrounding Aondoakaa arose from legal positions adopted by the Federal Government.
Others stemmed from political disagreements.
Still, others reflected genuine policy disputes within government.
But political disagreement should never be confused with criminal liability.
That distinction remains fundamental.

Why the Campaign Persists

The renewed effort to resurrect decades-old allegations appears driven less by new evidence than by contemporary political calculations.

With Aondoakaa now standing as a leading contender for the Benue governorship, opponents understandably recognize that his long public experience, legal pedigree and national profile make him a formidable political competitor.

Election campaigns often encourage opponents to revisit old controversies in the hope that repetition will achieve what evidence could not.

Whether that strategy succeeds ultimately depends on the judgment of the electorate.

The Final Verdict Belongs to the People

Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa’s public life has been marked by extraordinary controversy.
It has also been marked by extraordinary endurance.
He has survived investigations.
He has survived media trials.
He has survived political campaigns.
He has survived courtroom contests.

And through it all, the central fact has remained unchanged: allegations have repeatedly been made, but criminal guilt has never been judicially established against him.

As Benue voters prepare to decide who should govern the state from 2027, they will undoubtedly assess every candidate’s record, competence, integrity and vision.

They are entitled to scrutinislze Chief Aondoakaa as rigorously as every other aspirant.

They are equally entitled to distinguish between accusation and proof, between propaganda and evidence, and between political rhetoric and legal reality.

History is replete with leaders whose careers were repeatedly declared finished by their opponents, only for the electorate to return a different verdict. Politics often rewards persistence as much as popularity. Those who survive sustained scrutiny, legal contests and orchestrated campaigns frequently emerge with greater public credibility than they possessed before the attacks began. Whether Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa ultimately joins that list will be determined not by newspaper headlines or social media narratives, but by the sovereign will of the Benue electorate on election day.

In the end, democracies are strengthened not when reputations are destroyed by repetition of allegations, but when citizens insist that facts, not rumours, guide their judgment.

That principle, more than any campaign slogan, remains the true test of democratic maturity.

By Achadu Gabriel, Kaduna

The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) has expressed condolences over the death of former Minister of Budget and Finance, Sir Abubakar Alhaji, the Sardaunan Sokoto, describing him as a distinguished public servant and respected elder statesman. In a statement issued on Thursday and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Prof. T. A. Muhammad-Baba, the ACF said it received news of Alhaji’s death “with profound sadness.”

The forum described the late statesman, popularly known as “Triple A,” as a seasoned civil servant, former Federal Permanent Secretary, diplomat and Nigeria’s former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. It also noted that he was honoured as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE).

According to the ACF, Alhaji combined public service with scholarship and community engagement, serving at various times as Minister of Budget and Finance and later as Special Adviser on Economic and Budgetary Affairs to the Sokoto State Government. The forum said he was widely respected for his leadership, mentorship and commitment to national development, adding that his contributions to public administration would be remembered.

ACF Chairman, Mamman Mike Osuman, OFR, on behalf of the forum’s National Executive Council and members, prayed for Allah to forgive the late statesman’s shortcomings and grant him Al-Jannah Firdaus. The forum also extended its condolences to the Government and people of Sokoto State, the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, the Sultanate Council, and the family of the late Sardaunan Sokoto.