The Federal High Court in Abuja commenced hearing in a suit seeking to stop the conduct of the local government elections in Oyo State. Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who presided over the matter, ordered the plaintiff to serve the originating summons on the defendants: the Oyo State Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The judge subsequently adjourned the case until September 10, 2026, for a report of service of the court processes on the defendants.
The suit was instituted by a businessman and politician from Ogbomoso, Akinloye Oyeniyi, through his counsel, Ayo Omoleaupen. Oyeniyi is challenging aspects of OYSIEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the forthcoming council elections, particularly its proposed verification and screening of candidates.
In the originating summons, the plaintiff is asking the court to determine whether OYSIEC’s constitutional powers are limited to the verification of documents of nominated candidates and do not extend to the actual verification or screening of candidates under Sections 1(1) and 7(1), and Paragraph 4(a), Part II of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, as amended, alongside Section 153(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026. He is also challenging Items 6 and 9 of OYSIEC’s revised timetable issued on March 4, 2026, arguing that they are inconsistent with the Constitution and the Electoral Act, infringing on his right to contest and vote for candidates of his choice.
Consequently, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that OYSIEC’s constitutional duty is strictly limited to verifying documents submitted by political parties regarding nominated candidates and that it lacks the power to verify or screen chairmanship, councillorship, or substituted candidates.
Among the reliefs sought is an order restraining INEC from releasing the certified register of voters for Oyo State to OYSIEC until the commission cancels Items 6 and 9 of its revised timetable. Oyeniyi noted that allowing elections under the disputed timetable would gravely affect his interests, adding in a supporting affidavit that the defendants would suffer no loss, the balance of convenience favoured him, and constitutional violations could not be compensated by financial damages.
