A cleared aspirant in the All Progressives Congress (APC) Delta South Senatorial District primary election, Hon. Tosan Desmond Oyowe, has filed a suit at the Federal High Court, Warri Judicial Division, challenging the validity of the senatorial primary held on May 18, 2026, alleging that the exercise was conducted without the use of the party’s membership register lodged with INEC, without accreditation of voters, and in a manner so chaotic that two rival defendants produced two different sets of results from the same primary, both claiming victory, while the plaintiff’s name and votes were entirely missing from both results.
The suit, filed through Ikhide Ehighelua & Co (Onoriode Chambers), joins the APC as 1st Defendant, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 2nd Defendant, incumbent Senator Joel Onowakpo Thomas as 3rd Defendant, and Prince (Evang.) Michael Diden as 4th Defendant. The suit was filed pursuant to Section 285(14) of the Constitution, Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
In what could prove to be one of the most consequential pre-election challenges of the 2027 cycle, Oyowe is not merely seeking the nullification of the primary but is alternatively asking the court to invoke Section 88(3) of the Electoral Act 2026 to disqualify the APC entirely from fielding any candidate for the Delta South Senatorial District in the 2027 general elections. He is also raising a separate constitutional argument based on INEC’s failure to comply with a Supreme Court judgment ordering the fresh delineation of wards and units in the Warri Federal Constituency, which constitutes approximately 33.3 per cent of the Delta South Senatorial Zone.
Oyowe’s originating summons seeks the court’s determination on five key questions.
First, whether in view of Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026, the APC can validly conduct a primary election for the Delta South Senatorial Zone without using the party membership register lodged with INEC. The plaintiff argues that the primary was conducted without any reference to the official membership register, meaning there was no mechanism to verify that those who participated were actually registered members of the party.
Second, whether the APC can validly conduct a primary election without accrediting the voters, given that the Electoral Act expressly provides that primaries must be conducted either by consensus or direct primary election. Oyowe alleges that no accreditation of any kind took place during the exercise.
Third, whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants, having “openly and flagrantly violated the Electoral Act 2026 and the Constitution and guidelines of the APC” in connection with the primary, have incurred disqualification from emerging as candidates for the 2027 general election.
Fourth, in the alternative, whether the APC itself, having violated the Electoral Act, is disqualified or precluded from fielding any candidate for the 2027 general election in respect of the Delta South Senatorial Zone under Section 88(3) of the Electoral Act 2026.
Fifth, in a further alternative, whether INEC can validly conduct any election in the Warri Federal Constituency and consequently the Delta South Senatorial Zone, given its persistent refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment in SC/413/2016 (George Timinimi v. INEC) ordering the fresh delineation of wards and units in the constituency.
In his supporting affidavit, Oyowe, who describes himself as a registered member of the APC from Koko Ward in Warri North Local Government Area, stated that he duly purchased expression of interest and nomination forms, was screened and cleared to contest the primary by the APC’s screening committee, and embarked on robust mobilisation of supporters ahead of the May 18 exercise.
However, the plaintiff alleges that the primary descended into chaos and illegality.
Contrary to Item 20.4 of the APC Constitution and guidelines, which requires voting by open-secret ballot, the APC made people line up in fields and conducted counting in what Oyowe described as “the most ridiculous and inconsistent manner.” He attached video clips of the purported counting process as exhibits.
No register of party members was used during the exercise. No person was accredited to vote. The process bore no resemblance to a valid primary election as contemplated by the Electoral Act.
Most critically, at the conclusion of the exercise, both the 3rd Defendant (Senator Joel Onowakpo Thomas) and the 4th Defendant (Prince Michael Diden) produced two entirely different sets of results in the name of the APC, each proclaiming himself the winner of the same primary election. Both results purportedly emanated from the party and its officials.
“To my greatest shock, none of the two results bears my name and my votes cast for me by my teeming supporters,” Oyowe stated.
“It is obvious from the results flying up and down that the 1st Defendant totally lost control of the process and cannot be said to have conducted a primary election as laid down by law,” the plaintiff added.
In the written address filed in support of the originating summons, Oyowe’s counsel advanced several interconnected legal arguments.
On the membership register, counsel argued that Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 makes the use of the party membership register lodged with INEC mandatory for the conduct of primary elections. The failure to use the register renders the entire exercise invalid, as there was no mechanism to verify voter eligibility.
On the mode of voting, counsel argued that the Electoral Act expressly provides for only two modes of primary election: consensus or direct primary. The APC’s method of lining people up in fields and counting them in an ad hoc manner constitutes neither consensus nor a proper direct primary. Counsel invoked the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes all others), citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Buhari v. Yusuf (2003) and Opia v. INEC (2014) to argue that the express mention of direct primaries in the Electoral Act automatically excludes any other method.
On the conflicting results, counsel argued that the production of two different results by two different aspirants from the same primary election demonstrates that the APC “totally lost control of the process” and that the exercise cannot be regarded as a valid primary election under any interpretation of the law.
On APC guidelines conflicting with the Electoral Act, counsel cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Buhari v. INEC (2008) which held that practice directions and guidelines do not have the force of law when they conflict with the Constitution or the statute that enables them. Where APC’s guidelines conflict with the Electoral Act, the guidelines must give way.
Perhaps the most legally significant argument in the suit concerns the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in SC/413/2016 (George Timinimi v. INEC), reported as Timinimi v. INEC (2023) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1882) 109, which ordered the fresh delineation of all wards and units in the Warri Federal Constituency.
Oyowe’s counsel argued that as of the date of the primary election, INEC had not complied with the Supreme Court’s order. A Court of Appeal judgment delivered on May 15, 2026, just three days before the primary, re-emphasised the need for compliance and found that a proposal brought by INEC did not amount to compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Counsel submitted that in a direct primary election, voting is supposed to take place in all wards in the constituency. Since the Supreme Court has nullified the existing ward structure in the Warri Federal Constituency, and no fresh delineation has been carried out, the question becomes: what wards did they use to conduct the primary?
“The Supreme Court has already nullified the present and existing wards structure. We submit that anything done in violation of the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is a nullity,” counsel argued, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in PDP v. Alhaji Sule Lamido (SC/CV/154/2026), delivered on April 26, 2026, which upheld the nullification of the PDP convention because it was held in violation of a subsisting court order.
Counsel characterised the conduct of any electoral activity in the Warri Federal Constituency without compliance with the Supreme Court’s delineation order as contempt of court.
Since the Warri Federal Constituency makes up approximately 33.3 per cent of the Delta South Senatorial Zone, the invalidity of any electoral activity in that constituency necessarily affects the validity of the entire senatorial primary.
Oyowe seeks six reliefs from the court.
First, a declaration that the primary election conducted on May 18, 2026, is null and void for non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2026, APC guidelines, and the Constitution.
Second, a declaration that the plaintiff, being the only cleared candidate who did not violate the rules, is the only qualified aspirant and should be declared the APC candidate for Delta South. Counsel urged the court to treat the plaintiff as an unopposed candidate and declare him the winner, arguing that “he who seeks equity must do equity” and “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands,” and that both the 3rd and 4th Defendants, having produced their own conflicting results in connivance with the party, should be disqualified.
Third, in the alternative, a declaration that under Section 88(3) of the Electoral Act 2026, the APC is disqualified from having any candidate for the Delta South Senatorial Zone in the 2027 general election.
Fourth, in a further alternative, a declaration that INEC, having violated the Supreme Court judgment on Warri ward delineation, cannot validly supervise any primary election or conduct any general election in the Warri Federal Constituency and consequently the Delta South Senatorial Zone.
Fifth, a declaration that INEC cannot validly conduct elections in the Warri Federal Constituency given the flagrant violation of the subsisting Supreme Court judgment.
Sixth, any other relief the court may deem fit to grant.
The suit carries several potential implications for the APC’s 2027 election prospects in Delta South.
If the court nullifies the primary and declares Oyowe the winner, the APC would have a candidate that neither the national party leadership nor the state chapter selected through its own process, a scenario that would generate intense internal controversy.
If the court invokes Section 88(3) and disqualifies the APC from fielding any candidate in Delta South, the ruling party would lose the senatorial district entirely without a single vote being cast in the general election, a devastating outcome for a party that controls the presidency and aspires to dominate the South-South region.
If the court accepts the Warri ward delineation argument, the implications extend far beyond this single senatorial contest. A finding that INEC cannot conduct elections in the Warri Federal Constituency until it complies with the Supreme Court’s delineation order would potentially affect every election in that constituency, including the House of Representatives election and possibly all elections in the Delta South Senatorial Zone that depend on results from Warri wards.
The affidavit of non-multiplicity filed by Oyowe confirms that he does not have any other suit pending in any court in Nigeria against the defendants on the same subject matter.
Tosan Oyowe
Neither Senator Joel Onowakpo Thomas, Prince Michael Diden, the APC, nor INEC has filed a response to the suit as at the time of this report. The court is yet to fix a hearing date.
The suit was filed by Ikhide Ehighelua, Esq., with K.K. Akpule, Esq., and O.J. Obodaya, Esq., of Ikhide Ehighelua & Co., Onoriode Chambers, 2 Ikhide Ehighelua Close, Off Ovie Palace Road, Effurun, Delta State.
The post “Two Results, One Primary” — Cleared APC Aspirant Tosan Oyowe Challenges Delta South APC Senatorial Primary, Seeks Nullification appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.
