The legal landscape surrounding the upcoming 2027 general elections in Nigeria has taken a contentious turn following a high-profile legal challenge instituted at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja. An aggrieved stalwart of the Accord Party, Adebukola Ajaja, has formally approached the judiciary seeking the outright disqualification of all candidates fielded by the political platform for the forthcoming polls. The legal action, marked as suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/2524/2026, was filed on October 21, 2026, through her legal counsel, Edmund Biriomoni.

At the core of the legal dispute is an intense internal power struggle regarding statutory compliance, party constitutionality, and the legitimate authority required to submit candidate lists to the electoral umpire. The outcome of this suit has the potential to set a significant judicial precedent regarding administrative procedures within Nigerian political parties, particularly concerning compliance with the Electoral Act of 2026 and the regulatory guidelines enforced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Main Facts of the Case

According to court filings obtained by correspondents, the plaintiff, Adebukola Ajaja, who serves as the National Secretary of the Accord Party, instituted the action to challenge what she describes as a brazen usurpation of her constitutional and statutory responsibilities. The lawsuit lists four respondents: the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the first defendant, the Accord Party as the second defendant, Maxwell Mgbudem (the National Chairman of the party) as the third defendant, and ThankGod Kenechukwu (the National Organising Secretary) as the fourth defendant.

The gravamen of Ajaja’s complaint is that Mgbudem and Kenechukwu unlawfully sidestepped her office by jointly signing and submitting the mandatory candidate nomination documents to INEC. The plaintiff argues that under the extant laws governing the electoral process in Nigeria, the unilateral or improper combination of party officials executing candidate submissions renders the entire process fundamentally flawed, invalid, null, and void.

Specifically, the plaintiff is asking the court to issue several declaratory reliefs and injunctive orders. These include a declaration affirming the supreme and binding nature of Article 2 of the Accord Party Constitution over all members and organs of the party. Furthermore, Ajaja wants the court to invoke the combined provisions of Sections 29(1) and (2), and Sections 82(1) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2026, alongside Articles 11(1) and (2), 12(2), 27(3), and 30(1) and (2) of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties, 2026.

Based on these legal frameworks, the plaintiff maintains that only the National Chairman and the National Secretary acting jointly possess the legal capacity to sign and submit sensitive nomination documents. These documents include letters captioned “Submission of Accord’s Party Candidates EC9 Series Forms for 2027 General Election,” alongside Forms EC9(A), EC9(B), EC9(C), EC9(D), and EC9(E) to the electoral commission.

Consequently, the plaintiff is seeking a perpetual injunction from the Federal High Court to set aside and nullify all candidate submission letters and associated EC9 series forms executed exclusively by the third and fourth defendants on June 30, 2026, July 19, 2026, and August 5, 2026. If granted, the ruling would effectively invalidate the candidature of every individual nominated under the platform of the Accord Party for the 2027 general elections.

Chronology of Events Leading to the Lawsuit

To fully understand the gravity of suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2524/2026, it is essential to examine the sequence of administrative actions and statutory deadlines that preceded the court filing. The timeline of events highlights the escalating internal crisis within the Accord Party executive hierarchy:

• June 30, 2026: The National Chairman, Maxwell Mgbudem, and the National Organising Secretary, ThankGod Kenechukwu, reportedly execute and submit the first batch of Accord Party candidates’ EC9 series forms and accompanying letters to INEC, bypassing the National Secretary.
• July 19, 2026: A second tranche of candidate nomination forms and submission letters is transmitted to the electoral commission, again jointly signed by the third and fourth defendants.
• August 5, 2026: The final batch of candidate documentation, including Forms EC9(A) through EC9(E), is submitted to INEC under the signatures of Mgbudem and Kenechukwu, solidifying the alleged exclusion of the National Secretary from the statutory process.
• October 21, 2026: Aggrieved by the continued marginalization of her office and what she perceives as a flagrant violation of internal party democracy and national electoral laws, Adebukola Ajaja formally files suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2524/2026 at the Federal High Court in Abuja through her lawyer, Edmund Biriomoni.
• Late October 2026: Legal documentation and court filings are processed, and copies are served on all designated respondents, setting the stage for preliminary hearings and legal arguments.

Legal Framework and Statutory Interpretations

The legal arguments advanced by the plaintiff heavily rely on strict compliance with Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence. The Electoral Act, 2026, alongside INEC’s operational guidelines, places strict procedural requirements on political parties regarding the conduct of primaries and the subsequent submission of candidate names.

Section 29 of the Electoral Act, 2026, outlines the procedure for the submission of lists of candidates by political parties to the electoral commission. It stipulates that every political party shall submit to the commission the list of candidates whom the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, and such list must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the candidate indicating that they have fulfilled all constitutional requirements for election into the office in question.

Furthermore, Section 82 of the Electoral Act regulates the submission of names of party officers, convention or congress guidelines, and notice of conventions or congresses. Subsection (1) and (6) emphasize adherence to internal party constitutions and the authorization protocols required for communicating valid decisions of the party to the electoral commission.

Ajaja’s counsel argues that by allowing the National Organising Secretary—an office primarily tasked with party mobilization and internal logistics—to co-sign executive nomination letters alongside the National Chairman, instead of the constitutionally mandated National Secretary, the party acted outside the boundaries of the law. In administrative law, where a statute prescribes a specific mode of performing an act, that mode must be strictly followed, or the act is rendered a nullity.

Internal Party Dynamics and Administrative Strife

The legal battle exposes deeper, underlying administrative fractures within the Accord Party. Political parties in Nigeria have historically been plagued by factionalization, power struggles among national working committee (NWC) members, and disputes over the control of party machinery ahead of major electoral cycles.

The Accord Party, which has steadily positioned itself as a viable alternative platform for candidates seeking to escape the intense intra-party friction of Nigeria’s dominant political parties, now finds its preparations for the 2027 general elections threatened from within. The public exposure of a major rift between the National Chairman and the National Secretary undermines the party’s image of stability and administrative cohesion.

While the third and fourth defendants—Maxwell Mgbudem and ThankGod Kenechukwu—have yet to file a formal, publicly released statement of defense in response to the suit, political observers note that executive officers accused of usurping power typically argue the doctrine of necessity, emergency administrative measures, or collective executive authorization. However, corporate and political governance experts emphasize that internal constitutional provisions cannot easily override mandatory statutory procedures enacted by the National Assembly and regulated by INEC.

Broader Implications for the 2027 General Elections

The implications of suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2524/2026 extend far beyond the internal governance of the Accord Party. If the Federal High Court rules in favor of the plaintiff and nullifies the candidate submission letters, it could trigger a massive crisis for the party, potentially barring all its candidates from participating in the 2027 presidential, gubernatorial, legislative, and state assembly elections.

Such a ruling would serve as a stern warning to political parties regarding strict adherence to statutory protocols and internal constitutions. In past electoral cycles, courts in Nigeria have frequently disqualified candidates due to improper submission processes, failure to monitor primaries properly, or non-compliance with statutory timelines. Notable landmark rulings have established that political parties are bound by their own constitutions and the provisions of the Electoral Act.

Conversely, should the court dismiss the suit, it would validate the administrative actions of the National Chairman and the National Organising Secretary, cementing their authority and clearing the legal path for the party’s candidates to campaign unhindered. A dismissal could also establish a precedent regarding the extent to which executive officers can delegate or substitute signatories in emergency administrative situations.

As the case gathers momentum at the Federal High Court in Abuja, legal analysts, political gladiators, and candidates of the Accord Party will be watching closely to see how the judiciary balances internal party autonomy with mandatory statutory compliance. With the 2027 general elections drawing closer, the resolution of this suit will undoubtedly play a critical role in shaping the final lineup of political parties and candidates certified by the Independent National Electoral Commission to contest the polls.