Here Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka Our Managing Editor takes a look at the question of who legally leads the Action Alliance [AA] has moved from party politics to a test of Nigeria’s rule of law. At the center is Chief Barr. Kenneth Udeze, whose leadership has been affirmed by multiple Court of Appeal judgments, yet allegedly sidelined by the Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC]. The standoff raises a fundamental issue: can an electoral body pick which court orders to obey? Read the excerpts.
In a world press conference, Udeze’s National Leadership accused INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan SAN, of “executive rascality” for allegedly recognizing a rival faction led by Adekunle Rufai Omoaje, despite subsisting appellate judgments. The dispute is no longer about internal party contest, but about institutional obedience to the judiciary.
This analysis critically examines Udeze’s claim to tenure, the judicial record supporting it, INEC’s alleged non-compliance, and the broader implications for democratic institutions. The evidence before the courts and INEC suggests a leadership that is not just claimed, but judicially validated.
The foundation of Udeze’s tenure rests on two key Court of Appeal decisions. The first, in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/955/2022 delivered on 26th January 2024, dismissed Omoaje’s challenge to the National Conventions of 14th March 2021 and 22nd February 2025* led by Udeze. The court awarded N4,000,000 in costs and found “no scintilla of merit” in the appeal.
The judgment was explicit. The Court held that appellants failed to provide tangible reasons to interfere with the lower court’s decision. By dismissing the appeal, the court effectively affirmed Udeze as National Chairman.
The second affirmation came on 6th September 2024 in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/869/2024. The Court validated Udeze’s leadership, referencing an FCT High Court judgment and its affirmation by the Court of Appeal. It stated: “There is no doubt that the said Chief Barr Kenneth Udeze is the National Chairman of the 2nd Respondent.”
The most recent ruling on 14th July 2026 in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/854/2026 reinforced this position. The Court dismissed an application by the Omoaje group challenging Udeze’s authority to brief counsel, calling it an “abuse of court process” and awarding N500,000 in costs.
Critically, the Court addressed INEC’s own documents. It cited Exhibit 9A [15 April 2024] where INEC told Udeze to “continue with the administration and organization of the Party as National Chairman,” and Exhibit 9B [Sept 2024] reaffirming executives elected on 27 Oct 2023 with Udeze as Chairman.
The Court also referenced INEC’s Press Release of 9 Oct 2025 [Exhibit 10]*, which stated the Commission “cannot list Omoaje name as Chairman… when the judgment of the Appeal Court is still subsisting.” This makes INEC’s alleged June 24, 2026 portal listing of Omoaje “By Court Order” contradictory.
Under Section 287(2) of the 1999 Constitution, decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced by all authorities. The AA leadership argues that INEC’s refusal to restore Udeze’s name to its website is a direct violation of this provision.
The Court of Appeal itself noted the legal inconsistency. It stated the Omoaje faction “cannot simultaneously appeal against a judgment as wrong while relying on a portal entry which claims chairmanship ‘By Court Order’ when the relevant orders run against it.”
Thus, the legal position is clear: until set aside by the Supreme Court, the subsisting Court of Appeal judgments recognizing Udeze bind INEC. The pendency of SC/CV/162/2024 at the Supreme Court does not invalidate the subsisting judgments.
From a constitutional law perspective, Udeze’s tenure is therefore “tenured by judicial affirmation.” The conventions of 2021 and 2025, challenged and upheld, provide the internal party basis. The courts provide the external legal basis.
INEC’s alleged conduct presents a governance problem. A Commission headed by a Professor of Law and SAN is accused of disobeying binding judgments. This creates a perception of selectivity and erodes public trust.
AA alleges corruption and undue influence within INEC as the reason for the non-compliance. While these are strong allegations requiring proof, the documented letters of 5 May, 6 May, and 22 July 2026 to INEC, with CTCs of judgments attached, show that formal notice was given.
The threat of contempt proceedings is a logical legal recourse. If substantiated, willful disobedience to court orders by a public officer is punishable and would set an important precedent for electoral accountability.
Beyond AA, this case reflects a larger crisis: conflicting rulings and institutional disregard for court orders. When INEC “picks and chooses” which orders to obey, it weakens the judiciary and invites impunity across other agencies.
For Action Alliance, the legal clarity has operational effects. Udeze’s leadership claims it conducted consensus primaries for State Assembly, NASS, Governorship and Presidential candidates in compliance with the Electoral Act 2026. Candidate safety and ballot access now hinge on INEC’s recognition.
The AA statement also connects this legal fight to national issues, insecurity, economic hardship, unemployment, and collapse of public services, arguing that democracy dies when institutions become lawbreakers.
The critical study shows that Kenneth Udeze’s leadership of Action Alliance is legally tenured based on concurrent, subsisting Court of Appeal judgments. The unresolved issue is not the law, but enforcement. Until INEC complies or the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the Commission’s stance represents a direct challenge to Section 287(2) and to the principle that no one, including an electoral umpire, is above the law.
