Court refuses to stop 2026 NBBF elective congress and sets hearing date

The Federal High Court in Abuja has set November 3, 2026, for the hearing of a case challenging the legality of the elective convention of the Nigeria Basketball Federation (NBBF), after rejecting an application seeking to stop elections scheduled for Thursday.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2428, was filed by Ayodele Olaseinde Bakare against the NBBF and the National Sports Commission (NSC), with the plaintiff questioning the procedures adopted to convene the federation’s conference in Yola, Adamawa State.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, the court refused to grant an interim order restraining the federation from proceeding with the scheduled elections. However, it accepted the request to shorten the deadline within which the defendants must respond to the questions on the merits, reducing the deadline from one month to two weeks. Project reports

The matter was subsequently adjourned to November 3 for hearing at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Plaintiff challenges Yola convention’s conduct

Bakare’s lawsuit challenges the legality of the congress held in Yola, arguing that the process violated the provisions of the NBBF Constitution governing the convening and holding of congress meetings.

The appellant argued that neither two-thirds of the members of the congress nor the NBBF board issued the required notice to convene the special congress in Yola.

It also said that only 44 of the 50 members of the congress had been notified of the meeting, raising questions about compliance with the federation’s constitutional requirements and the participation of eligible members.

According to the allegations set out in the complaint, the alleged failure to notify all affected members constituted a violation of applicable procedures and undermined the right to participate in the conference of those who had not been notified.

The legal challenge places the federation’s internal electoral procedures at the center of the dispute, in particular the requirements for issuing notices, ensuring adequate participation and complying with the provisions of its governing constitution.

The charges have not been definitively determined by the court and it is expected that the defendants will be given the opportunity to respond to the charges.

The Court rejects the request to interrupt the elections

While considering the application for an interim order, the court refused to restrain the NBBF from conducting the scheduled elective convention.

The proceedings took place shortly before the elections, and the court reportedly took into account the proximity of the planned exercise and the financial and logistical commitments already made by the organizers and participants.

These commitments included travel arrangements for delegates expected from different parts of the country, venue bookings and other preparations associated with the congress.

The court also considered the need to give the defendants an opportunity to be heard before issuing an order that could disrupt the electoral process.

Refusal to grant the provisional application means that the court has not issued the required order to suspend the conference at that stage. However, this is not a final decision on whether the congress was held in accordance with the NBBF Constitution.

The substantive case remains pending and the legality of the procedures challenged by Bakare has yet to be determined.

The defendants were given two weeks to respond

Although the court refused to stop the elections, it granted the request to shorten the deadline for the defendants to respond to the charges on the merits.

The deadline, initially expected to be one month, was reduced to two weeks, bringing forward the timetable expected for the exchange of responses between the parties before the hearing on the merits.

The court also ordered that original court processes be served on both the NBBF and the NSC to formally notify them of the proceedings and enable them to respond to the allegations.

The directive constitutes an important procedural step in the case, as it ensures that defendants are formally involved in the proceedings and have the opportunity to present their positions.

The NBBF and NSC are expected to address the issues raised by the complainant in accordance with the court’s directions.

It is expected that their responses, together with the plaintiff’s arguments and any relevant evidence, will form part of the material the court will consider as the case proceeds.

Nov. 3 hearing to address substantive claims

The November 3 hearing is expected to focus on the plaintiff’s challenge to the procedures adopted to convene the Yola convention and whether those procedures comply with the NBBF Constitution and other applicable legislation.

The court will have to consider the arguments and evidence presented by the parties before ruling on the issues raised in the case.

If the plaintiff proves that the conference was held in violation of the applicable constitutional provisions, the court may consider appropriate remedies in the context of the claims before it. Defendants, however, will have the opportunity to contest the charges and present their defense.

The outcome will therefore depend on the legal arguments and evidence presented to the court rather than the charges alone.

For now, the court’s refusal to grant an interim order has not resolved the underlying dispute over the legality of the conference. The substantive case remains open, and the Nov. 3 hearing is expected to provide the next significant development.

The lawsuit places the NBBF’s electoral process under judicial scrutiny as the federation and the plaintiff prepare to present their respective positions on compliance with the constitution that governs the basketball body.