A legal battle that wound its way through three tiers of Nigeria’s judiciary has finally reached a decisive conclusion, with the Supreme Court of Nigeria setting aside the majority ruling of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, and declaring Joshua Ishaku as the valid candidate of the All Progressives Congress for the 2026 Bwari Area Council chairmanship election.
In a split decision of four to one delivered on Monday, February 17, 2026, the apex court upheld the dissenting judgment previously entered by Justice Okon Abang at the appellate court level, effectively reversing the trajectory of a dispute that had, up to that point, consistently ruled against Ishaku at the lower courts.
Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur, who read the lead judgment of the Supreme Court, resolved all issues in favour of Ishaku and held that the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal was wrong in its conclusion that the appellant’s suit was statute-barred.
The court found that by dismissing the suit on that procedural ground without examining the substance of the dispute, the lower courts had denied Ishaku a fundamental constitutional right.
“The inevitable conclusion is that the appellant was denied the opportunity to be heard,” the Supreme Court held, adding that he “was denied fair hearing.”
The case traces its roots to the APC primary election conducted on June 25, 2025 in Bwari Area Council, a political and administrative unit within the Federal Capital Territory. Following that primary, a dispute arose over which candidate legitimately emerged as the party’s flag-bearer for the upcoming 2026 council chairmanship election. While Ishaku maintained that he was the rightful winner of the exercise, Haruna Audi had been recognised as the party’s candidate by subsequent processes, eventually prompting Ishaku to approach the Federal High Court.
The Federal High Court, however, dismissed Ishaku’s suit on the grounds that it was statute-barred, meaning it had been filed outside the time legally permitted for such proceedings. Dissatisfied, Ishaku appealed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, where a majority of the justices affirmed the Federal High Court’s decision and upheld Audi’s candidacy.
But Justice Okon Abang dissented sharply from that majority position. In his minority opinion, he dismissed the respondents’ argument about when the cause of action accrued as an “imaginary position” unsupported by law or evidence, and concluded that time could not legally begin to run against a litigant on the basis of an act that had been concealed or not disclosed.
Justice Abang reasoned that the cause of action in the case could only have arisen when the name of the second respondent was formally forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission, not at the earlier point the majority had identified. He characterised the argument that the suit was triggered by the panel’s alleged decision as a deliberate legal construction designed to ensure the matter never received a hearing on its merits.
He also faulted the Federal High Court for failing to properly evaluate Exhibit J and Exhibit INEC 4, documents he described as material to a just determination of the case.
-The Supreme Court, in restoring Ishaku’s candidacy, engaged directly with the questions of party autonomy, internal dispute resolution, and constitutional rights issues that have increasingly occupied Nigerian courts in election-related disputes.
On the question of whether Ishaku ought to have exhausted internal party mechanisms before approaching the courts, the apex court held that “the internal affairs principle is not absolute.” It went further to state that “where issues transcend domestic party affairs, the court can intervene,” and that “where a party violates its guidelines, the shield of internal affairs falls away.”
The court noted that it was the aggrieved party, not the declared winner, that was ordinarily expected to exhaust internal procedures first. It described as contradictory any insistence that Ishaku, as the declared winner of the primary, should have gone through internal party channels before filing his suit.
“It is contradictory to insist that the appellant ought to have exhausted the party’s internal mechanisms,” the court stated.
The Supreme Court further agreed with Justice Abang’s reasoning that the dispute involved more than internal party affairs, as it touched on an infraction of constitutional rights, Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, and the APC’s own guidelines. The invocation of Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act is significant: this provision governs conduct at party primaries and has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation across Nigerian courts since the 2022 amendment of the Electoral Act.
The apex court also held that lower courts must analyse each case based on its unique facts, and faulted the Court of Appeal for failing to fully evaluate the material evidence before it before arriving at its decision.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal, and affirmed Justice Abang’s dissenting opinion as the legally correct position. The court ordered the relevant authorities to publish Ishaku’s name as the APC candidate for the Bwari Area Council chairmanship election.
The ruling carries significance beyond the immediate parties for a number of reasons. First, it reinforces the growing body of Nigerian Supreme Court decisions that limit the scope of the “internal party affairs” doctrine — a principle often invoked by political parties to shield their internal processes from judicial scrutiny.
Nigerian courts have over the years grappled with where to draw the line between legitimate party autonomy and justiciable disputes. Earlier decisions, particularly those preceding the 2010 Electoral Act amendments, tended to grant political parties wide latitude. But subsequent judicial reasoning, including rulings from the apex court itself, has gradually narrowed that immunity, particularly where constitutional rights or statutory violations are alleged.
Second, the decision affirms the value of dissenting opinions within the appellate system. It is relatively uncommon, though not unprecedented, for a Supreme Court to base its affirmation entirely on a dissenting judgment from the court below. Justice Abang’s dissent, which both trial and appellate majorities had rejected, ultimately provided the legal reasoning that the nation’s highest court found compelling.
Third, for the APC, the ruling clarifies the party’s candidacy for what is a competitive local government election in a strategically important FCT area council. Bwari is one of six area councils in the Federal Capital Territory, and local government elections in the FCT attract national attention given their proximity to Abuja’s political establishment.
The Supreme Court’s judgment is final and binding on all parties. No further appeal lies against it.
Supreme Court of Nigeria, Joshua Ishaku, Bwari Area Council, APC primary, 2026 FCT elections, Justice Okon Abang, Court of Appeal, Electoral Act Section 84, FCT Area Council election, INEC candidate listing
