Supreme Court Affirms Joshua Ishaku as APC Candidate for Bwari Council Polls
The Supreme Court has affirmed Joshua Ishaku as the lawful chairmanship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the Bwari Area Council in the forthcoming Federal Capital Territory (FCT) council elections.
Delivering judgment on Monday, a four‑member majority of the five‑man panel set aside the Court of Appeal’s majority decision which had earlier recognised Haruna Audi as the party’s candidate. The apex court instead upheld the dissenting opinion of Justice Okon Abang, declaring Ishaku the rightful candidate.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court erred in concluding that Ishaku’s suit was statute‑barred. The panel clarified that the matter was neither premature nor shielded by the doctrine of internal party affairs, stressing that the appellant had been denied fair hearing.
On the issue of internal dispute resolution, the court reiterated that the principle of party autonomy is not absolute. Where constitutional rights, statutory provisions (including section 84(14) of the Electoral Act), or party guidelines are violated, judicial intervention is warranted. The justices reasoned that Ishaku, having emerged winner of the APC primary election, could not be treated as an “aggrieved person” required to exhaust internal remedies.
The apex court therefore allowed the appeal, affirmed Justice Abang’s dissent, and directed the relevant authorities to publish Ishaku’s name as the APC candidate for the February 21 FCT area council polls.
Justice Abang’s dissent had earlier faulted both the trial court and the appellate majority for failing to properly evaluate key exhibits, including affidavits and INEC documents, which supported Ishaku’s claim that no valid primary election produced Audi. He maintained that the cause of action only arose when Audi’s name was forwarded to INEC, and that Ishaku had successfully proved his case on all six issues raised.
By this decision, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that internal party mechanisms cannot override constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and compliance with electoral law.
