Ogun PDP Legal Adviser Disputes Claims on Supreme Court Judgment, Says Iyabo Obasanjo’s Candidacy Stands

The Ogun State Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) State Legal Adviser, Comrade Waliu Olawale Oladipupo, has rejected claims that the Supreme Court’s September 24, 2026 judgment on provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has implications for the candidacy of Senator Iyabo Obasanjo as the PDP candidate for Ogun Central.

Oladipupo, in a statement titled “Re: Iyabo Obasanjo and the So-Called Implication of the Supreme Court Judgment of 24th September, 2026,” argued that the judgment restored provisions of the Electoral Act relating to political party membership registers and candidate nomination but did not specifically determine the eligibility of any individual candidate.

The Supreme Court on September 24 upheld an appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) against a Court of Appeal decision that had voided provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning party primaries and membership registers. Reports of the judgment state that the apex court held that Sections 77(5) and 84 of the Electoral Act were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and set aside the Court of Appeal decision. (The Guardian)

The provisions at the centre of the case included Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2). Sections 77(5) to (7) relate to political party membership registers, while Section 84(2) addresses methods for the nomination of candidates by political parties. (The Guardian)

Oladipupo maintained that the judgment did not disqualify Obasanjo, cancel her party primary or make any specific finding concerning her candidacy.

“That judgment is declaratory. It declares what the law is. It did not disqualify any candidate, it did not cancel any primary, and it did not mention Senator Iyabo Obasanjo,” he stated.

He further argued that any challenge based on alleged non-compliance with the restored provisions would have to be pursued through the appropriate pre-election legal process and within the period prescribed by law.

According to him, Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act and Section 285 of the Constitution provide the relevant framework for pre-election disputes. He argued that a prospective litigant would have to establish the case with the appropriate documentary evidence, including the relevant party membership register submitted to INEC.

Oladipupo also questioned whether the statutory limitation period for any such challenge had already expired, asking when INEC published the relevant candidate information for Ogun Central.

“If anyone feels a candidate did not comply with Sections 77 and 84, the remedy is well known. It is a pre-election matter under Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act and Section 285 of the Constitution,” he said.

He cited the Supreme Court decision in Arapaja v. INEC and other pre-election cases in support of his argument that proceedings brought outside the applicable limitation period could be statute-barred.

The legal adviser also disputed reliance on dates allegedly associated with Obasanjo’s resignation from the All Progressives Congress (APC), her subsequent return to the PDP and the party’s activities surrounding her nomination.

He argued that dates relating to resignation letters, their receipt by party officials or political events would not, on their own, establish the contents or status of a party membership register submitted to INEC.

“Party membership register is a document in the custody of INEC. Only INEC can confirm when the PDP register was submitted and whether a name was on it,” he stated.

Obasanjo resigned from the APC in May 2026 after a short period in the party and later returned to the PDP. The PDP formally received her in June and presented her as its candidate for Ogun Central in the 2027 elections. (Premium Times Nigeria)

Oladipupo further argued that the Supreme Court judgment should not be interpreted as retrospectively invalidating actions taken while the Court of Appeal judgment remained operative.

“Even if we assume, without conceding, that there was a defect in the register, the Supreme Court judgment cannot be backdated to punish a nomination concluded before the judgment,” he said.

He contended that political parties and candidates acted within the prevailing legal framework before the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s position.

The legal adviser concluded that the September 24 judgment did not itself remove Obasanjo from the ballot, stressing that any challenge to her candidacy would have to be determined through the appropriate judicial process.

“The Supreme Court did not disqualify Iyabo Obasanjo. It restored a law for future compliance,” Oladipupo said.

The statement comes amid renewed political and legal discussions surrounding the application of the Electoral Act 2026 ahead of the 2027 elections. The Supreme Court ruling has clarified the validity of the disputed statutory provisions, while questions concerning their application to particular candidates would depend on the facts and any proceedings properly brought before the courts.

Oladipupo signed the statement in his capacity as PDP State Legal Adviser.