A presidential aspirant of the Labour Party, Arc. Peter Agada, has accused the party leadership of unfair treatment and financial exploitation following his disqualification from the presidential race.
Agada alleged that he spent over ₦300 million on nomination forms, campaign preparations, administrative processes, and political mobilisation before being abruptly removed from the contest.
In a statement released by his campaign organisation, the aspirant described the development as a “political betrayal,” claiming he had already completed screening and other requirements ahead of the party’s primary election before receiving a disqualification notice.
According to the campaign, the party accepted huge financial commitments from him throughout the process only to later exclude him from the race.
The group argued that the disqualification was based on a zoning arrangement that was allegedly introduced late and inconsistently enforced.
It maintained that Agada’s removal from the contest after active participation reflected bad faith and injustice within the party, while demanding his immediate reinstatement.
However, the Labour Party defended its decision, insisting that its presidential ticket had long been zoned to the South.
Reacting to the allegations, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Ken Eluma Asogwa, said the zoning arrangement was neither secret nor newly introduced, adding that it had been publicly adopted and ratified by the party.
He explained that the decision was formally approved during the party’s national convention held on April 28, 2026, stressing that all party members and aspirants were bound by the resolution.
According to Asogwa, Agada knowingly proceeded with his ambition despite being aware of the zoning formula, describing the move as a personal political gamble.
The party also dismissed claims surrounding the alleged ₦300 million expenditure, insisting that financial commitments made by aspirants cannot override constitutional decisions of the party.
Labour Party maintained that the disqualification was not targeted at any individual but was simply the enforcement of an already established party policy.
Meanwhile, the controversy has continued to stir reactions within the party, with supporters of the aspirant insisting that the zoning principle was selectively applied and unfairly implemented.
