INEC Rejects Claims of Ignoring Court Order in Action Alliance Dispute

The Independent National Electoral Commission has dismissed reports alleging it disobeyed a Federal High Court order issued in Osogbo, Osun State, over the leadership tussle within the Action Alliance (AA).

The controversy began after reports claimed the court had ordered the arrest of former INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, for failing to comply with a judgment delivered on September 29, 2025. The ruling reportedly recognised a faction of the party led by Rufai Omoaje and directed INEC to publish the names of the new executive members elected during the party’s October 2023 convention in Abeokuta.

In a statement released on Friday by the National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Sam Olumekun, INEC described the reports as inaccurate. The commission said the media misrepresented the facts and failed to mention the steps already taken to obey the court’s judgment.

INEC explained that it had acted within the court’s timeline by filing the necessary documents at the Federal High Court in Osogbo on October 6, 2025, confirming compliance with the ruling. It also presented evidence from its website showing the recognition of the AA executive elected in Abeokuta.

However, the commission acknowledged a new challenge from the judgment creditors, who argued that INEC listed only four national executives without including the National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje. In response, INEC submitted a copy of Omoaje’s pending appeal before the Supreme Court, where he is challenging a Court of Appeal judgment that removed him as party chairman.

According to the commission, it cannot list Omoaje as chairman while the appellate court’s decision stands, since its judgment holds higher legal authority than that of the Federal High Court. INEC said it must act within the law and respect the hierarchy of the courts.

The commission urged journalists to verify information before publication, warning that false reports could mislead the public and create unnecessary confusion over sensitive legal matters.