By Ahmed Lawal
The ongoing legal battle surrounding the candidacy of Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji has revealed a high-stakes courtroom contest where legal strategy, procedural precision, and timing have proven decisive.
From early filings to recent court proceedings, observers say the legal team representing Oyebanji—popularly known as BAO—has effectively boxed opposition challengers into a corner through technical arguments and procedural flaws that could ultimately determine the outcome of the case.
Procedural Errors Weaken Opposition Cases
One of the earliest suits, filed by Abimbola Olajumoke Olawumi in October 2025, immediately ran into trouble due to a critical omission: the failure to join Oyebanji as a necessary party.
Under Nigerian law, such an omission can render a case incompetent, as courts lack jurisdiction when key parties are excluded. Although the claimant later attempted to correct this through a joinder application led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the move exposed further procedural complications.
During proceedings, the court openly questioned the legal approach, particularly the attempt to seek substituted service on a party not yet formally joined—highlighting what many legal analysts described as a fundamental misunderstanding of court procedure.
Time Limits Become a Deciding Factor
A central issue in the case is the 14-day statutory window for filing pre-election matters. By the time Oyebanji was formally joined in February 2026, several months had already passed since the events being challenged.
Legal experts argue that this delay renders the suit statute-barred, effectively closing the door on the claims. Without Oyebanji as a party, the case cannot proceed, reinforcing the legal principle of fair hearing—often summarized as “you cannot determine a case against a person in their absence.”
Multiple Challenges Face Similar Legal Hurdles
A separate case involving supporters of Kayode Ojo appears to face similar difficulties. Plaintiffs sought to introduce additional parties and amend filings without proper court approval, raising further procedural questions.
Oyebanji’s legal team, alongside representatives of the All Progressives Congress (APC), argued that:
- Only aspirants have the legal right to challenge a party primary under the Electoral Act
- The plaintiffs lacked locus standi (legal standing)
- The matter falls within the internal affairs of the party, limiting court interference
They also pointed out that some suits were filed before the APC primary was even conducted, making them speculative and legally unsustainable.
Courtroom Drama and Strategic Advocacy
Beyond the legal arguments, courtroom proceedings featured moments of tension and light exchanges among counsel, reflecting the intensity of the case. Senior lawyers on both sides engaged in sharp arguments, with the court repeatedly probing the validity of claims and procedures.
The Independent National Electoral Commission maintained a neutral stance, with the court declining to allow it to make partisan submissions.
Judgment Dates to Decide the Outcome
With arguments concluded, the court has fixed April 14 and April 16, 2026, for rulings and final judgment on the consolidated matters.
For many observers, the case underscores a broader lesson in Nigerian electoral litigation: technical compliance and timing can be as decisive as the merits of the case itself.
As the legal dust settles, the question remains whether the opposition can overcome these procedural setbacks—or whether Oyebanji’s legal strategy has already secured a decisive advantage.