Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Michael K. Aondoakaa, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit seeking his disqualification from contesting the 2027 Benue State governorship election. He contends that the case is statute-barred, incompetent and an abuse of court process.
Aondoakaa, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate for the election, raised the request in a preliminary objection filed in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2175/2026. The action was instituted by the governorship candidate of the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM), Hon. Adagba Damian Iorhen, against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Aondoakaa and the PDP. The plaintiff is seeking, among other reliefs, an order disqualifying or preventing Aondoakaa from contesting the election.
In the preliminary objection and accompanying written address, Aondoakaa urged the court to dismiss the suit in limine. He argued that the plaintiff commenced the action outside the mandatory 14-day period prescribed for pre-election matters under Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). According to him, his emergence as the PDP candidate became publicly known after he won the party’s primary on May 24, 2026. His Certificate of Return was presented on June 24, 2026, and his name was subsequently forwarded to INEC. The suit, filed on September 11, 2026, was therefore instituted well outside the constitutionally prescribed period.
Aondoakaa further contended that the issues raised by the plaintiff relate to pre-election matters concerning qualification or disqualification and are subject to the constitutional time limit. He also argued that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to challenge his emergence as the PDP candidate, noting that the plaintiff was neither a member of the PDP nor an aspirant who participated in the party’s governorship primary. The objection stated that the plaintiff allegedly became a member and governorship candidate of the APM on September 11, 2026, months after the PDP primary had been conducted.
He maintained that the grounds for qualification and disqualification for the office of governor are constitutionally prescribed under Sections 177 and 182 of the 1999 Constitution and cannot be expanded through judicial interpretation. Aondoakaa specifically denied being disqualified under any of the constitutional provisions, stating that he was not under a death sentence, had not been declared a lunatic, was not an undischarged bankrupt and had not been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty.
He rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on a previous Supreme Court case, SC 939/2015, involving him and Emmanuel Obot, arguing that the matter was civil and did not amount to a criminal conviction. According to him, he was neither arraigned nor convicted for a criminal offence in that case and was therefore not caught by the constitutional provisions relating to criminal conviction and disqualification.
Aondoakaa’s lawyers also challenged the procedure adopted by the plaintiff, contending that an originating summons was not the appropriate process for enforcing a judgment. They argued that where a party seeks to enforce a subsisting judgment, the appropriate procedure provided by law must be followed, and that a person who was not a party to the original proceedings could not, in the circumstances alleged, seek to enforce the judgment. The defence further alleged that the originating process was defective because it was not properly signed and sealed by the Registrar of the court.
Citing several Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions, including Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim, APC v. Umar, Marwa v. Nyako, PDP v. INEC, Karshi & Ors v. Gwagwa & Ors and Wada & Ors v. Bello & Ors, the legal team urged the court to resolve the preliminary objection in favour of Aondoakaa. The respondents maintained that the plaintiff’s claims were speculative, incompetent and disclosed no reasonable cause of action against Aondoakaa. They consequently asked the Federal High Court to dismiss or strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action, non-compliance with the applicable rules and alleged abuse of court process.
The court is expected to determine the preliminary objection before proceeding to consider the substantive claims.
