The Court of Appeal on Thursday, January 8, 2026, heard arguments in the appeal filed by Hon. Joshua M. Ishaku against the All Progressives Congress (APC), Hon. Shekwolo Haruna Audi, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), with all parties and their legal representatives present in court.
At the commencement of proceedings, counsel to the appellant informed the court that the matter was slated for hearing and that he was ready to proceed. Other counsel aligned with this position, except counsel to the 1st respondent, who notified the court of a notice of preliminary objection.
In addition, the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) representing the 2nd respondent informed the court of a motion filed on December 12, 2025.
Counsel to the appellant subsequently applied to withdraw a motion earlier filed on December 5, 2025, stating that it had been overtaken by events. With no objections from the respondents, the court struck out the application.
The court thereafter indicated its intention to first hear the preliminary objection, related interlocutory applications, and replies before proceeding to the substantive appeal.
Moving the preliminary objection filed on December 5, 2025, counsel to the 1st respondent urged the court to either strike out or dismiss the appeal.
In response, counsel to the appellant argued that pages 1 and 2 of the reply brief filed on December 8, 2025 sufficiently addressed the preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent. The learned silk urged the court to dismiss the objection, describing it as frivolous.
Meanwhile, the learned silk representing the 2nd respondent moved the motion filed on December 12, 2025, along with the reply to the appellant’s counter-affidavit.
Counsel to the appellant adopted his counter-affidavit filed on December 6, 2025, opposing the 2nd respondent’s motion. He argued that the reply filed by the 2nd respondent merely repeated earlier arguments and urged the court to strike it out. He further submitted that the application was misplaced and demonstrated a misunderstanding of the facts of the case.
Following the resolution of preliminary issues, counsel proceeded to adopt their briefs in respect of the substantive appeal.
Counsel to the appellant identified and adopted several processes, including the Notice of Appeal filed on November 20, 2025, the Record of Appeal transmitted on November 27, 2025, the Appellant’s Brief filed on December 2, 2025, and multiple reply briefs filed in response to the arguments of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents. He urged the court to allow the appeal and was granted permission to further adumbrate.
Counsel to the 1st respondent adopted the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on December 5, 2025, and briefly addressed the court.
Similarly, counsel to the 2nd respondent adopted the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on December 12, 2025, aligned with the submissions of the 1st respondent, and further adumbrated.
Counsel to the 3rd respondent also adopted the 3rd Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on December 5, 2025, and made additional submissions.
After listening to all submissions, the Court of Appeal reserved the appeal for judgment, which is expected to be delivered on or before January 18, 2026.
