What If Ekiti PDP Goes Into 2026 Without a Candidate?

By Deolu Oyebode

What if?

Just imagine for a moment, Ekiti goes into the 2026 governorship election and the PDP ends up without a valid candidate on the ballot?

What if the entire congress that produced its delegates is cancelled by the courts?

What if Governor Biodun Oyebanji (BAO) ends up running with almost no substantial challenger, not because APC is too powerful, but because PDP ignored a sitting court judgment, relied on a disputed letter, and allowed internal factional battles to overshadow due process?

As dramatic as this sounds, it is genuinely possible. In Nigerian politics, a single unresolved judgment or an improperly issued party letter can quietly determine the fate of an entire election.

But before anything else, let me be clear: this is not about individuals. Not about Oluyede. Not about Ayeni. Not about Ogun. Not about Wike. Not about Fayose (Osoko). Not about Abdulrahman Mohammed.

This is simply an attempt to analyse, and understand the legal terrain, especially now that slogans like “rape on democracy” and “justice must prevail” could fill the air post election.

I have also said that Democracy is not only about emotions; it is about compliance with the rules that make those emotions meaningful.

Now, let us return to the facts. The judgment by Justice Bamidele Omotoso of the Ekiti State High Court is still very much alive. It upheld the PDP Ward Congress of 15 March 2025 as the only valid and lawful congress in Ekiti State. It declared the May 2025 Local Government/State Congress illegal because it violated a subsisting restraining order. The judge went further to nullify the delegates’ list that emanated from that May congress and issued a perpetual injunction stopping the PDP from ever recognising or using that new list. In simple terms: only the March 15 congress stands; everything else after it is unlawful.

This judgment has not been vacated. It has not been appealed successfully. It remains a legal reality.

When PDP conducted its governorship primary in November 2025, 535 delegates voted. INEC monitored the exercise. It was peaceful. But peace at the venue does not cure a legal defect. The real issue is: Were the delegates drawn strictly from the March 15 list? If even one delegate came from the voided May list, the primary becomes vulnerable.

This is where the internal factional dynamics come into play. On one side is the national influence of Nyesom Wike, whose loyalists issued directives and suspended processes in various states. On the other side is Ayo Fayose (Osoko), who continues to command significant influence in Ekiti PDP politics. But works for opposition candidate, BAO.

These dynamics created tension around who controls the process, who authenticates the delegates, and whose structure carries the day. In this type of environment, it is easy for a party to overlook legal landmines while fighting for political advantage.

Now comes the controversial letter sent some hours to the Primary election. The letter was issued by Abdulrahman Mohammed, claiming to act as National Chairman, directing that the Ekiti PDP congress and governorship primary scheduled for 8 November 2025 were postponed due to logistical reasons. But here is the key legal point many do not emphasise enough:

Only letters signed by the National Secretary of a political party are recognised by INEC and tenable in court.

This is the law, INEC’s protocol, and importantly, the judicial precedent. This is because the National Secretary is the statutory custodian of party records and communication. Where a letter lacks the National Secretary’s signature, INEC treats it as mere paper. Courts do the same.

So, if the Mohammed letter was not validly co-signed by the National Secretary, then INEC was right to ignore it and proceed with observing the primary. But, and this is the danger, the mere existence of that letter introduces confusion, and confusion is the seed of litigation. A petitioner may still raise it to argue procedural irregularity, especially when combined with the Omotoso judgment.

Put all these together, the implications become clear:

1. The primary may be nullified if the court finds that it relied on the voided May list or that procedural due process was breached.
2. A fresh primary may be ordered, but if INEC’s nomination window has closed, PDP will be unable to replace its candidate.
3. The party may end up without a valid candidate for 2026, a devastating political reality.
4. Even if PDP wins the election, post-election litigation may nullify the victory if the candidate’s nomination is deemed invalid.
5. The Federal High Court judgment in Abuja declaring several PDP congresses invalid nationally adds an extra layer of risk, because it reinforces the principle that faulty congresses equal faulty primaries.

Of course, there is a soft landing. PDP can rescue itself by proving, clearly and transparently, that the primary was strictly based on the March 15 list validated by the Omotoso judgment. Alternatively, the party may appeal the judgment. But time is the enemy. INEC’s deadlines do not shift for internal party disputes.

Once again, this is not about individuals or personal ambition. I don’t want to be quickly tagged as this is another APC strategy testing waters. Or someone’s body language.

If PDP in Ekiti addresses these issues honestly and urgently, it can still protect its ticket and offer Ekiti people a real alternative. But if it continues to overlook this legal landmines, then yes, the party may walk into 2026 without a candidate, or win at the polls and still lose everything in court.

This is not alarmism.

This is my opinion. I am open to superior argument and corrections if I am wrong.

In okun o.

About The Author