Spread the word
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 3, 2026, for the hearing of a suit challenging the legality of the Nigeria Basketball Federation (NBBF) elective congress, after declining an application seeking to stop the election scheduled for Thursday.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2428, was instituted by Ayodele Olaseinde Bakare against the NBBF and the National Sports Commission (NSC), with the plaintiff questioning the procedures adopted in convening the federation’s congress in Yola, Adamawa State.
At proceedings on Wednesday, the court declined to grant an interim order restraining the federation from proceeding with its scheduled election. However, it granted an application to shorten the period within which the defendants must respond to the substantive claims, reducing the timeframe from one month to two weeks. Blueprint reports
The matter was subsequently adjourned until November 3 for hearing at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Plaintiff challenges conduct of Yola congress
Bakare’s suit challenges the legality of the congress held in Yola, alleging that the process violated provisions of the NBBF Constitution governing the convening and conduct of congress meetings.
The plaintiff argued that neither two-thirds of the congress members nor the NBBF Board issued the required notice convening the extraordinary congress in Yola.
He also alleged that only 44 of the 50 congress members were served with notices for the meeting, raising questions about compliance with the federation’s constitutional requirements and the participation of members entitled to attend.
According to the claims outlined in the suit, the alleged failure to notify all the relevant members amounted to a breach of the applicable procedures and affected the right of those who were not served to participate in the congress.
The legal challenge places the federation’s internal electoral procedures at the centre of the dispute, particularly the requirements for issuing notices, ensuring proper participation and complying with the provisions of its governing constitution.
The allegations have not been finally determined by the court, and the defendants are expected to have the opportunity to respond to the claims.
Court declines request to halt election
In considering the application for an interim order, the court declined to restrain the NBBF from conducting its scheduled elective congress.
The proceedings took place shortly before the election, with the court reportedly taking into account the proximity of the scheduled exercise and the financial and logistical commitments already made by the organisers and participants.
These commitments included travel arrangements for delegates expected from different parts of the country, venue bookings and other preparations associated with the congress.
The court also considered the need to give the defendants an opportunity to be heard before making an order that could disrupt the electoral process.
The refusal to grant the interim application means the court did not issue the requested order stopping the congress at that stage. It does not, however, amount to a final ruling on whether the congress was conducted in accordance with the NBBF Constitution.
The substantive suit remains pending, and the legality of the procedures challenged by Bakare is yet to be determined.
Defendants given two weeks to respond
Although the court declined to stop the election, it granted a request to abridge the timeframe for the defendants to respond to the substantive claims.
The period, initially stated as one month, was reduced to two weeks, bringing forward the timetable for the parties to exchange their responses ahead of the substantive hearing.
The court also directed that the originating court processes be served on both the NBBF and the NSC to formally notify them of the proceedings and enable them to respond to the allegations.
The directive is an important procedural step in the case, as it ensures that the defendants are formally brought into the proceedings and given the opportunity to present their positions.
The NBBF and the NSC will be expected to address the issues raised by the plaintiff in accordance with the court’s directives.
Their responses, alongside the plaintiff’s arguments and any relevant evidence, are expected to form part of the material the court will consider as the case progresses.
November 3 hearing to address substantive claims
The November 3 hearing is expected to focus on the plaintiff’s challenge to the procedures adopted in convening the Yola congress and whether those procedures complied with the NBBF Constitution and other applicable regulations.
The court will have to consider the arguments and evidence presented by the parties before determining the issues raised in the suit.
If the plaintiff establishes that the congress was conducted in breach of the applicable constitutional provisions, the court may consider the appropriate remedies within the scope of the claims before it. The defendants, however, will have the opportunity to contest the allegations and present their defence.
The outcome will therefore depend on the legal arguments and evidence placed before the court rather than the allegations alone.
For now, the court’s refusal to grant an interim order has not resolved the underlying dispute over the legality of the congress. The substantive case remains open, with the November 3 hearing expected to provide the next significant development.
The suit places the NBBF’s electoral process under judicial scrutiny as the federation and the plaintiff prepare to present their respective positions on compliance with the constitution governing the basketball body.
Spread the word