Ogun guber: PDP aspirant, Topa Olusegun, gives INEC 48 hours to publish name

A governorship aspirant of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun, Topa Olusegun Peter, has given the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) 48 hours to publish his name as the duly nominated candidate of the party in the state, having satisfied the requirements of Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026.

Topa Olusegun, in a letter dated October 14 and addressed to the chairman of the electoral body through his lawyer, Mr. Anderson Asemota of Neplus Ultra Attorneys, said he is the PDP governorship candidate, having obtained the Expression of Interest form and nomination form on May 12, 2026, and duly participated in the primary election conducted by the party on May 27, 2026.

Peter, who demanded the immediate publication of his name as the party’s duly nominated candidate, threatened legal action if the Commission failed to address the matter.

ALSO READ: Nigeria secures UN Human Rights Council seat with 172 votes

According to Asemota, the demand letter to the INEC Chairman, which was made available to newsmen in Abuja, followed the Commission’s publication of the final list of governorship candidates on October 10, which excluded the PDP from the race in Ogun State.

Peter’s lawyer argued that his client had fulfilled the requirements for nomination and deserved an explanation for his exclusion.

In the letter, Asemota said, “Our Client briefed us, and we verily believe him that he is the duly nominated gubernatorial candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Ogun State.”

The lawyer further maintained that his client’s name appeared as entry number 15783 on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC in compliance with Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

According to the letter, Peter had not been furnished with written reasons for the omission of his name or notified of any objection that might have informed the Commission’s decision.

The lawyer urged INEC to verify his client’s membership status and examine the party’s primary election and nomination records in its custody.

Citing Sections 29 and 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, Asemota argued that the Commission had a statutory obligation to publish the particulars of nominated candidates, subject to the applicable law and any binding judicial decision affecting their nominations.

He also cited Section 77(5) of the Act, which provides that, “Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.”

The lawyer acknowledged the Supreme Court’s judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, in appeal numbered SC/CV/495/2026, but maintained that the decision should be applied to the specific facts and records relating to his client.

“Our Client does not invite the Commission to disregard that decision. Rather, the Commission is requested to apply the provisions as authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court to the actual facts and records relating to the PDP and our Client,” the letter stated.

Asemota asked INEC to establish whether Peter’s name appeared on the membership register submitted by the PDP, whether the applicable statutory requirements had been met and whether any court order or other lawful basis existed for excluding him.

He demanded that the Commission complete the verification within 48 hours of receiving the letter and provide a written explanation of its findings.

The lawyer further requested that, if INEC’s records confirmed Peter’s nomination and no lawful basis existed for excluding him, the Commission should publish a supplementary or amended list containing his name as the PDP governorship candidate in Ogun State.

He also demanded written confirmation of the steps taken and the outcome of the review within the same period. While warning of possible litigation, Asemota said his client had instructed his lawyers to consider approaching a competent court if INEC failed to provide a substantive response or the omission persisted without a lawful and adequately explained basis.

“If the Commission fails to provide a substantive response within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt, or if the omission persists without a lawful and adequately explained basis, our client has instructed us to consider instituting appropriate proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction, seeking such declaratory, mandatory and consequential reliefs as may be available on the facts and in law, together with costs,” Asemota said in the letter.

“For the avoidance of doubt, we do not ask the Commission to usurp the adjudicatory function of the court. We ask it to review the relevant records, and perform its statutory functions lawfully,” the letter added and urged the electoral body to treat the matter as urgent and take any corrective action required by law.