Supreme Court Ruling: INEC Moves to Clarify Fate of 2027 Candidates

Supreme Court Ruling: INEC Moves to Clarify Fate of 2027 Candidates

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has said it will determine how the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Electoral Act 2026 affects candidates after reviewing the certified true copy of the judgment.

The development has heightened uncertainty among some political parties and 2027 election candidates, particularly those whose nominations could be scrutinised over party membership registers and the procedures used to conduct their primaries.

The Supreme Court, in its September 24 judgment, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which had earlier been struck down by the Court of Appeal. The provisions deal principally with political party membership registers and candidate nomination procedures.

Under Section 77(5), only members whose names appear on a party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention are eligible to participate in the exercise.

Section 77(6) requires parties to use the membership register submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses and conventions, while Section 77(7) provides consequences for a party that fails to submit its register within the prescribed period.

Section 84(2), meanwhile, provides for the nomination of candidates through direct primaries or consensus.

The Supreme Court’s decision did not name or automatically disqualify any individual candidate. Questions surrounding particular nominations are expected to depend on the facts of each case, including party membership records, the timing of registration or defection and how the relevant primary was conducted.

READ ALSO:

• Omokri Defends Tinubu Over Pension Record, Faults Linking President to 89-Year-Old’s Death
• Tantita Operations Push Oil Export Earnings to $9.39bn in Q2
• Fifty Years After “Africa Has Come of Age”: A Personal Reflection on Nigeria’s Silence at the United Nations

INEC has therefore refrained from announcing a blanket decision on candidates whose nominations could be affected.

The commission is expected to engage political parties and other stakeholders on October 6, while also addressing the issue publicly as preparations continue for the 2027 general elections. INEC is also expected to publish the final list of governorship and State House of Assembly candidates on October 10.

Several candidates have already attracted attention because of circumstances surrounding their party membership or nomination.

Among those mentioned are Kingsley Chinda, the APC governorship candidate in Rivers State; Isa Pantami, the PDP governorship candidate in Gombe State; Donald Duke, the PRP presidential candidate; Ovie Omo-Agege, the NDC senatorial candidate in Delta Central; and Victor Ochei, the NDC candidate for Delta North.

In Chinda’s case, questions have centred on the timing of his movement from the PDP to the APC and whether his membership status complied with the restored provisions before the party’s governorship primary.

The Rivers APC has maintained that Chinda registered with the party on April 27, ahead of the May 21 primary, and therefore met the relevant 21-day requirement.

Pantami’s case is also subject to separate legal proceedings. He left the APC for the PDP after withdrawing from the APC governorship primary and subsequently emerged as the PDP’s candidate in Gombe. A Federal High Court ruling in Gombe had already nullified his nomination and ordered a fresh primary, meaning his situation involves issues beyond the Supreme Court judgment alone.

For Omo-Agege and Ochei, attention has focused on their movement from the APC to the NDC and the waivers granted to enable them to contest the NDC nomination exercises. Their cases raise questions about the interaction between party membership, waivers and the restored provisions of the Electoral Act.

Former Inspector-General of Police Mohammed Abubakar Adamu, the SDP governorship candidate in Nasarawa State, has also insisted that his candidacy remains valid. The SDP has said he had been a member of the party for about three months before its governorship primary.

The key issue for INEC is whether nominations conducted while the disputed provisions were temporarily invalidated will be assessed under the provisions subsequently restored by the Supreme Court.

For now, the Supreme Court judgment should not be interpreted as an automatic cancellation of the affected candidates’ tickets.

The final position will depend on INEC’s review of the judgment, the relevant party records and the specific circumstances surrounding each nomination, as well as any separate court proceedings that may arise.

With the 2027 elections approaching, the commission’s forthcoming clarification is expected to provide greater certainty for political parties, candidates and other stakeholders over the status of nominations affected by the ruling.

Supreme Court Ruling: INEC Moves to Clarify Fate of 2027 Candidates