The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday adjourned a suit seeking to void the emergence of former Cross River State Governor, Donald Duke, as the presidential candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) until June 29 for hearing.
Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the case after counsel to the plaintiff, Abdullahi Muhammad, prayed for an adjournment to enable them to move a motion for substituted service of court processes on Duke.
When the case, which came up for the first time before Justice Umar, was called, only Muhammad, the plaintiff’s lawyer, was in court.
The lawyer told the court that although the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had been duly served with the originating summons, they had not been able to serve the former governor.
“We, therefore, pray, My Lord, for a short adjournment in order to move a motion for substituted service on the 2nd defendant (Duke),” he prayed.
Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until June 29 for mention and for the hearing of the motion for substituted service of the court processes on Duke.
An aggrieved PRP presidential aspirant, Dr Yakubu Kingsley, had sued the party, the former governor and INEC as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, respectively.
Kingsley, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1234/2026 and filed by D.A. Sulyman on June 10, wants the court to determine whether Duke was duly returned as the presidential candidate of the PRP in the May 25 primary election, the results of which were declared on May 26, despite allegedly not being a registered member of the party as of May 4, when the PRP’s membership register was submitted to INEC.
The plaintiff also asked the court to determine:
“Whether over-voting in states such as Bauchi, where the registered members of the 1st defendant in its membership database are 593 and the total votes cast were 760; in Gombe State, where the registered members were 348 and the votes cast were 1,431; and in Kwara State, where the registered members are 55 while the votes cast were 82, would not warrant the nullification of the said primary election.”
He therefore sought a declaration that the former governor, not being a registered member of the PRP, could not validly participate in the party’s primary election held on May 25, in which he was declared the winner on May 26.
He also sought a declaration that Duke ought not to have been cleared to contest the presidential primary election, having failed to comply with the party’s guidelines requiring aspirants to physically present themselves for screening at its national secretariat.
Kingsley further prayed the court for an order setting aside the results of the presidential primary election conducted in Bauchi, Gombe and Kwara states on the grounds of over-voting.
He also sought an order declaring him the PRP’s presidential candidate for the 2027 general election, having complied with all the party’s guidelines and being a registered member of the party, as well as an order directing the commission not to recognise Duke as the PRP’s presidential flagbearer or to delete his name from its database as the party’s presidential candidate.
The plaintiff further sought an order directing the electoral umpire to recognise him as the PRP’s presidential candidate.
In the affidavit in support of the suit, deposed to by Kingsley himself, the aggrieved aspirant said he is a registered member of the PRP with membership card number 2A8D8B20B2.
The plaintiff, who described himself as a politician, said he is from Auchi III Ward, Etsako West Local Government Area of Edo State, but currently resides in Abuja, FCT. He averred on oath that Duke was not a duly registered member of the PRP as of May 4, when the party’s membership register was submitted to INEC.
He said he validly purchased the party’s Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and paid a total of N20 million to the party.
He stated that he duly completed all nomination requirements and was endorsed by the requisite number of registered members, as required by the party’s guidelines.
“That I physically attended the presidential screening exercise conducted by the party between 15th and 19th May, 2026, at the National Secretariat of the 1st defendant in Abuja, as stipulated in the Aspirants’ Checklist for Screening, a copy of which is attached herewith and marked as Exhibit BB,” he said.
He added that he was duly screened and cleared by the party to contest the presidential primary election conducted on May 25.
According to him, “To my utmost surprise, the name of the 2nd defendant (Duke) appeared as an aspirant despite the fact that he did not physically participate in the screening exercise together with other aspirants at the National Secretariat of the 1st defendant.”
He argued that this was contrary to INEC’s extant regulations and guidelines, which require political parties to submit the names of their registered members at least 21 days before the conduct of a party primary.
Kingsley therefore challenged the electoral umpire to produce the membership register submitted to it on May 4, alleging that several objections and complaints had been raised by party members concerning Duke’s eligibility.
The aggrieved aspirant also alleged that the presidential primary election was characterised by widespread irregularities and manipulation, claiming that in several states the votes returned exceeded the total number of eligible registered members contained in the party register.
He attached the result sheet of the presidential primary election to support his allegation of over-voting, adding that his agents and representatives reported instances where they were denied effective participation in the collation process.
“That I verily believe that the purported result declared in favour of the 2nd defendant does not represent the lawful votes cast by eligible members of the party.
“That when the unlawful and inflated votes are excluded, I emerge as the aspirant who secured the highest number of lawful votes in the presidential primary election.
“That I depose to this affidavit in good faith, believing the contents to be true and correct in accordance with the Oaths Act,” he said.
