The Convener of the Kogi West Professional, Academia and Intellectual Group (KWPAIG), Dr. Williams Charles Oluwatoyin, has urged stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to respect Senator Sunday Steve Karimi’s constitutional right to challenge the Federal High Court judgment recognising Hon. Samuel Bamidele Aro as the party’s candidate for the 2027 Kogi West senatorial election.
Oluwatoyin, in a statement issued on Saturday, described calls from some political quarters urging Karimi to accept the judgment and refrain from alleged anti-party activities as premature, stressing that pursuing a lawful appeal should not be equated with disloyalty to a political party.
He maintained that although everyone was entitled to express an opinion on the judgment, no individual or political group should expect an aggrieved litigant to surrender a legal remedy provided by the Constitution.
“The Federal High Court’s judgment may be right, and it may be wrong. That is precisely why our judicial system provides for appeals. A judgment does not become legally infallible simply because it has been delivered by a court of first instance. Where the law provides an opportunity for appellate review, the affected party is entitled to exercise that right,” Oluwatoyin stated.
He noted that Section 285(11) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, prescribes a 14-day period for filing appeals in pre-election matters, underscoring the importance of the appellate process in resolving disputes arising from political party nominations.
According to him, the controversy surrounding the APC Kogi West senatorial primary raises important legal questions concerning participation, declaration of results, the validity of competing election records and compliance with electoral legislation.
Oluwatoyin observed that Karimi maintains that he emerged victorious from the disputed primary election and should therefore be allowed to challenge any judicial finding he considers inconsistent with the law or the evidence.
“If Senator Karimi maintains that he won the primary election and believes that the Federal High Court reached an incorrect conclusion, why should anyone insist that he must abandon his right to appeal? The proper response is to allow the Court of Appeal to examine the judgment and determine whether it is supported by the law and the evidence,” he said.
The convener emphasised that respecting a court judgment was fundamentally different from agreeing with its conclusions, explaining that an aggrieved party could recognise the authority of a court while legitimately seeking appellate review.
“An appeal is not rebellion against the judiciary. It is part of the judicial process. A person can respect a judgment and still disagree with it. That is not a contradiction; it is one of the fundamental principles upon which the rule of law operates,” he explained.
He questioned attempts to associate Karimi’s proposed appeal with anti-party activities, warning that such interpretations could discourage party members from pursuing legitimate judicial remedies.
“Today, it may be Senator Karimi being told to abandon his appeal. Tomorrow, it could be another aspirant. We cannot celebrate the right of one person to seek judicial redress and condemn another for exercising exactly the same right. The law must apply equally, irrespective of whose political interest is involved,” Oluwatoyin stated.
Drawing an analogy, he likened demands that Karimi accept the judgment without exploring available legal remedies to beating a child and subsequently forbidding the child from crying.
“If a man believes he has been wronged and the law provides a legitimate avenue for challenging that wrong, why should he be condemned for using it? If his case lacks merit, let the appellate court establish that. If his case is meritorious, let the court correct the error. That is how constitutional democracy should function,” he added.
Appeal Must Not Be Confused with Anti-Party Activity
Oluwatoyin urged APC stakeholders to distinguish between legitimate political disagreement and conduct that genuinely constitutes anti-party activity, insisting that party loyalty should not require members to relinquish their legal rights.
“Supporting Senator Karimi’s decision to appeal does not make anyone an enemy of the APC, just as supporting Hon. Aro does not make anyone an enemy of Karimi. Political differences are inevitable in a democracy, but they must be managed through mutual respect, tolerance and adherence to the rule of law,” he said.
He called on supporters of both aspirants to exercise restraint and avoid inflammatory statements capable of deepening divisions within the party.
The convener further urged the APC leadership to encourage reconciliation, fairness and respect for due process, noting that genuine party unity could not be achieved by expecting aggrieved members to abandon legitimate judicial remedies.
He equally acknowledged Aro’s right to defend the Federal High Court judgment, stressing that both aspirants were entitled to pursue their respective positions within the framework of the law.
“This is not about denying Hon. Aro his rights. He is entitled to defend the judgment in his favour, just as Senator Karimi is entitled to challenge it. Both positions are legitimate within the framework of the law,” Oluwatoyin stated.
He described the dispute as a test of the commitment of political stakeholders to constitutional principles, warning against the tendency to equate lawful dissent with political disloyalty.
“Truth must not be gagged in a democratic setting. Dissent must not automatically be labelled disloyalty, and the lawful exercise of a constitutional right must never become a political offence simply because some individuals disagree with the person exercising it,” he said.
Oluwatoyin concluded by urging all parties to allow the judicial process to run its course, emphasising that the legal validity of the disputed nomination should ultimately be determined through the courts rather than political sentiment.
“If the Federal High Court correctly applied the law and evaluated the evidence, let the Court of Appeal affirm its judgment. If errors warranting appellate intervention are established, let the judgment be set aside. That is the essence of the rule of law,” he declared.
Dr. Williams Charles Oluwatoyin is the Convener of the Kogi West Professional, Academia and Intellectual Group (KWPAIG).
