The Labour Party (LP) has dismissed allegations of fraud and political misconduct made by a disqualified presidential aspirant, Peter Agada, who is demanding a refund of ₦150 million paid for his 2027 presidential nomination bid.
Agada, through his Presidential Campaign Council, had accused the party leadership of collecting nomination-related fees from him despite allegedly knowing he would not be cleared to contest due to the party’s zoning arrangement, which reportedly favours the South for the presidential ticket.
In a petition issued in Abuja on Saturday, the council claimed that the party received ₦50 million for expression of interest and nomination forms, as well as an additional ₦100 million allegedly contributed for the party’s convention and related activities.
The group also faulted the party for allowing Agada to purchase forms, participate in screening, and continue his campaign activities before his eventual disqualification ahead of the May 30 primary.
It further alleged that the Labour Party acted in bad faith and threatened to report the matter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), insisting that the funds were collected under false pretences.
The council also questioned the party’s consistency, arguing that Agada’s disqualification raised concerns about the application of the zoning policy, especially after he was initially screened and engaged in the process.
However, the Labour Party has strongly rejected the accusations, insisting that Agada’s disqualification was in line with its constitution and the resolutions of its national convention.
Speaking on Sunday, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Ken Asogwa, maintained that the zoning of the presidential ticket to the South was a long-standing and formally adopted decision.
According to him, the arrangement was ratified at the party’s April 28, 2026 national convention and is binding on all members, aspirants, and party structures.
He added that Agada proceeded with his ambition despite being aware of the zoning directive, describing it as a personal political risk rather than a party-induced deception.
Asogwa also dismissed claims that financial contributions or campaign spending could override established party rules, stressing that internal resolutions remain supreme.
The party maintained that the disqualification was not targeted or politically motivated, but a constitutional enforcement aimed at preserving order and internal balance within its ranks.