Supreme Court Restores Electoral Act Rules as Parties Review 2027 Primaries and Candidate Nominations

By Simpson Global Media News Desk

The Supreme Court has restored key provisions of Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 governing political-party membership registers and the nomination of candidates, creating a fresh legal and administrative framework for parties preparing for the 2027 general elections.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, a seven-member panel of the apex court allowed an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and set aside an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had invalidated Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act.

The Supreme Court held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and restored the position reached by the Federal High Court in Abuja when it initially dismissed a constitutional challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

The ruling does not itself declare any individual 2027 candidate disqualified.

Instead, it restores statutory requirements that political parties must take into account in relation to their membership registers, party primaries, congresses, conventions and candidate-nomination procedures.

The decision has already generated differing interpretations among political parties and legal practitioners about how the restored provisions will affect nomination processes that were conducted before the Supreme Court judgment.

Some parties have said their procedures complied with the Electoral Act, while others have said they are awaiting the Certified True Copy of the judgment before determining its precise implications for their candidates. INEC has also been reported to be considering the legal consequences of the ruling.

The judgment comes as Nigeria's political parties move deeper into preparations for the 2027 elections, making the interpretation and application of the restored provisions an important issue for candidates, party officials, election administrators and courts.

The provisions at the centre of the dispute

The case revolved around four provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) concern the membership registers that political parties are required to submit to INEC and the use of those registers for party primaries, congresses and conventions.

Section 84(2) concerns the procedures through which political parties nominate candidates for elective positions.

Under Section 77(5), only persons whose names appear in a political party's membership register submitted to INEC within the period prescribed by law are eligible to participate in the relevant primary, congress or convention.

Section 77(6) provides that a party must use the membership register submitted to INEC rather than another register for those exercises.

Section 77(7) establishes a consequence for a party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period: it is not eligible to field a candidate in the election.

Section 84(2), meanwhile, provides for direct primaries or consensus as the methods through which political parties nominate candidates for elective positions.

The provisions became the subject of litigation after the Zenith Labour Party challenged their constitutionality.

The party argued that the statutory provisions interfered with the internal affairs of political parties and conflicted with constitutional provisions governing political-party organisation.

The Federal High Court rejected the challenge on May 5, 2026.

The ZLP appealed, and the Court of Appeal in Abuja subsequently allowed the appeal in part and invalidated the disputed provisions.

INEC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The apex court's September 24 decision reversed the Court of Appeal's position and restored the Federal High Court's judgment.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Supreme Court's decision was fundamentally about the constitutional validity of the disputed provisions.

The seven-member panel, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, held that Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) were not inconsistent with the Constitution.

The court therefore restored the statutory framework that had been struck down by the Court of Appeal.

It also awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party, according to reports of the judgment.

The ruling means that the provisions are again part of the legal framework governing the conduct of political parties and their nomination exercises.

For political parties, the most immediate issues concern the membership registers submitted to INEC and the procedures used to select candidates.

For election lawyers and candidates, questions are emerging about how those requirements interact with primaries that were already held before the Supreme Court's decision.

That question is particularly relevant because many political parties had already conducted primaries for the 2027 elections.

The Supreme Court's judgment itself did not identify individual candidates whose nominations should be cancelled or ordered particular parties to repeat their primaries.

Consequently, any dispute involving a specific candidate or party would have to be considered on its own facts and, where necessary, through the appropriate legal process.

Membership registers take centre stage

The restored membership-register provisions place renewed emphasis on the document submitted by each political party to INEC.

Under Section 77(5), the register must be submitted at least 21 days before the date fixed for a primary, congress or convention, and participation is tied to the names appearing on that register.

This creates a defined relationship between party membership records and the conduct of internal electoral exercises.

The provision is significant because political parties routinely update their membership structures.

People join parties, leave parties, defect from one party to another, transfer political allegiance and become eligible for different positions at different stages of the electoral cycle.

The law therefore establishes a deadline beyond which changes to the relevant register may not automatically translate into eligibility to participate in a particular primary.

The Supreme Court's restoration means political parties must again operate within that statutory framework.

Section 77(6) reinforces the rule by preventing a party from using another membership register for its primaries, congresses or conventions.

The requirement is designed to establish a fixed record against which participation can be assessed.

Section 77(7) goes further by attaching an electoral consequence to failure to submit the required register within the prescribed period.

A party that does not meet the requirement is, under the restored provision, not eligible to field a candidate for the election.

That provision makes the membership-register issue more than an internal administrative matter.

It can potentially affect a party's ability to participate in an election.

Direct primaries and consensus

The other major provision restored by the Supreme Court is Section 84(2).

The section provides that political parties are to nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus.

The Court of Appeal had previously invalidated the provision after finding merit in the constitutional challenge brought against it.

The Supreme Court's judgment has now restored the provision.

That means the statutory framework again specifies the two nomination routes available under Section 84(2).

Direct primaries involve party members participating in the process of selecting a candidate, while consensus involves an agreed candidate emerging through the procedure recognised by the party and the applicable law.

The restoration of the provision is therefore relevant to the way parties organise future nomination exercises.

It is also one of the areas where political and legal discussions have focused on the status of exercises conducted while the provisions were under judicial challenge.

Reports from legal practitioners published after the judgment show that there are differing views on the implications for processes that had already taken place.

Those differences do not change what the Supreme Court decided, but they demonstrate that the practical application of the judgment may generate further questions in individual cases.

The case began at the Federal High Court

The legal dispute did not begin at the Supreme Court.

The Zenith Labour Party initially challenged the relevant provisions at the Federal High Court in Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/509/2026.

The party argued that the provisions were inconsistent with the constitutional framework governing political parties.

Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the case on May 5, 2026.

The party then appealed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

The appellate court's July 16 decision altered the legal position by invalidating the disputed provisions.

That judgment prompted INEC to approach the Supreme Court.

The electoral commission argued that the provisions were valid and should remain part of the legal framework governing party primaries and candidate nominations.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with INEC's position and restored the Federal High Court's judgment.

The sequence illustrates the effect of Nigeria's judicial hierarchy in electoral disputes.

A trial-court decision can be reviewed by an appellate court, while a decision of the Court of Appeal can itself be challenged at the Supreme Court where the law permits.

The September 24 ruling therefore represents the apex court's determination of the constitutional challenge that gave rise to the case.

Why the judgment matters for 2027

The ruling arrives at a particularly sensitive stage of the electoral calendar.

INEC has already lifted the restrictions on campaign activities for different categories of elections.

Campaigning for presidential and National Assembly elections began on August 19, while campaigning for governorship and State House of Assembly elections began on September 9, according to reporting on the current electoral timetable.

Political parties are therefore moving from nomination and internal organisation into broader public campaigning.

The Supreme Court decision has introduced a renewed legal focus on the processes through which many of those candidates emerged.

The issue is not simply whether a candidate is popular within a party.

It includes whether the party followed the statutory procedures applicable to membership registers and nomination.

That distinction is important because the Supreme Court judgment did not decide whether every existing nomination complied with every requirement.

It restored the law.

Whether a particular party or candidate complied with that law is a factual question that can depend on documents, dates, party records, INEC records and the circumstances of the relevant primary.

Political parties respond

Political parties have responded differently to the judgment.

The Peoples Democratic Party, Allied Peoples Movement and Labour Party have told The PUNCH that they complied with the relevant provisions during their membership registration and primary processes.

Their national publicity officials also indicated that they were waiting to examine the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment before commenting fully on its implications.

The Nigeria Democratic Congress has similarly rejected suggestions that the ruling automatically invalidates the nomination of its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, his running mate Rabiu Kwankwaso or other candidates.

The party's spokesman, Osa Director, argued that the judgment should not be interpreted as automatically disqualifying individuals.

That position reflects an important distinction in the ruling: the Supreme Court ruled on the validity of the law, rather than issuing a blanket disqualification order against candidates.

Other parties and political actors have taken different positions on possible consequences.

The differences show that political parties are now assessing their own documentation and nomination processes against the restored statutory framework.

INEC's role

The judgment also has implications for INEC's regulatory responsibilities.

The electoral commission was the appellant in the Supreme Court case.

The commission had challenged the Court of Appeal's decision that invalidated the provisions.

With the Supreme Court's decision, the statutory provisions that INEC had defended have been restored.

INEC's role, however, is not to determine political preferences.

Its responsibility is to administer elections within the framework established by the Constitution and electoral legislation.

The restored provisions therefore provide statutory parameters within which the commission must perform its functions.

Reports indicate that INEC is examining the legal implications of the judgment and may rely on legal advice as it assesses individual situations.

The commission's approach will be closely watched because parties may seek clarification concerning membership registers, nominations and candidate eligibility.

The issue of candidates who changed parties

One area receiving particular attention is political defection.

Nigeria's political system allows politicians to change parties, subject to constitutional and statutory requirements.

The timing of a defection can become relevant when the individual subsequently seeks nomination under a new party.

Under the restored Section 77 framework, the relevant question can include whether the person was included in the party's membership register submitted to INEC within the required period before the relevant primary.

That does not mean every person who changed parties is automatically affected.

The circumstances can differ from one candidate to another.

Questions may include the date of registration, the date of the party's primary, the date the relevant register was submitted and whether the person's name appeared on that register.

Legal practitioners have consequently urged caution against treating the Supreme Court's judgment as an automatic disqualification of all politicians who recently moved between parties.

Individual disputes would have to be determined on their facts.

Rivers case illustrates the emerging disputes

The potential importance of the restored provisions is already visible in disputes surrounding individual candidates.

In Rivers State, questions have been raised about the eligibility of APC governorship candidate Kingsley Chinda following the Supreme Court judgment.

Reports say a legal group approached INEC seeking his disqualification, while the Rivers APC has rejected the argument and maintained that Chinda satisfied the applicable membership requirement.

The party's publicity secretary said Chinda registered with the APC 24 days before the party's governorship primary and therefore, in the party's interpretation, met the 21-day requirement.

The disagreement illustrates why the Supreme Court's judgment should not be treated as a general declaration that any particular candidate is either eligible or ineligible.

The relevant evidence in a specific case can include the party's membership records and the dates on which the necessary documents were submitted.

The existence of a legal challenge does not itself establish that a candidate has been disqualified.

Nor does a party's public defence conclusively resolve a dispute that may be before a court or election authority.

The ultimate legal status of an individual candidate depends on the applicable law and the determination of the competent authorities or courts.

Gombe's separate nomination dispute

A separate development in Gombe State has also highlighted the legal scrutiny surrounding party primaries.

The Federal High Court in Gombe reportedly nullified the PDP governorship primary that produced former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Ali Pantami and ordered the party to conduct a fresh primary within 30 days.

The court's decision arose from challenges by other PDP governorship aspirants who argued that the process that produced Pantami did not comply with the party's procedures and applicable electoral provisions.

The court reportedly declined a separate request to remove Pantami from the PDP, meaning the immediate order concerned the primary process rather than a blanket declaration that he could not belong to the party.

The PDP subsequently moved towards organising another primary.

That case is separate from the Supreme Court's ZLP-INEC litigation.

Nevertheless, it demonstrates the extent to which candidate-selection processes can generate legal disputes during an election cycle.

Each case turns on its own facts and the particular legal questions raised.

Parties await greater clarity

Political parties are now faced with a practical task: reviewing their records against the restored statutory provisions.

That exercise may include checking membership registers, dates of submission, records used during primaries and the nomination procedure adopted for each position.

Parties that used direct primaries or consensus will need to ensure that their processes complied with the applicable statutory and party requirements.

Where disputes arise, parties and candidates may seek legal remedies through the courts.

The Supreme Court judgment does not remove the possibility of further litigation over the application of the law to specific facts.

Indeed, lawyers have already raised questions about whether and how the restored provisions apply to nomination exercises that occurred while the provisions were the subject of judicial uncertainty.

Those questions may become more prominent as the election approaches.

What the judgment does not say

There are several points that should not be inferred from the Supreme Court decision.

First, the judgment does not announce a general disqualification of candidates who have already emerged from party primaries.

Second, it does not order all political parties to conduct fresh primaries.

Third, it does not determine the membership status of individual politicians who have changed parties.

Fourth, it does not resolve every possible dispute concerning a party's compliance with the restored provisions.

Instead, it establishes that the provisions themselves are constitutionally valid.

The practical consequences for individual parties and candidates depend on whether their particular processes complied with those provisions.

This distinction is especially important in political reporting because a judicial ruling about the validity of a law is different from a judicial ruling on the eligibility of a named candidate.

Legal questions around completed primaries

The most immediate unresolved issue concerns primaries that were conducted before the Supreme Court's September 24 judgment.

Political parties conducted many of their nomination exercises months before the Supreme Court delivered its decision.

At the time, the Court of Appeal's July 16 judgment had invalidated the disputed provisions.

The Supreme Court has now restored them.

Legal practitioners have consequently debated the effect of the judgment on acts that occurred during the period when the Court of Appeal decision was operative.

Some lawyers have argued that the Supreme Court's decision restores the legal position, while others have raised questions concerning retrospectivity and how the ruling should apply to completed exercises.

The distinction between the legal validity of a provision and its application to facts that occurred during different periods is a matter for legal interpretation.

Reports published after the judgment show that senior lawyers do not have a single public interpretation of every consequence arising from the decision.

Further clarification may therefore emerge through legal advice, INEC decisions and, where disputes are filed, subsequent court proceedings.

The significance of the 21-day requirement

The 21-day membership-register requirement is one of the most discussed aspects of the ruling.

Its purpose, in practical terms, is to establish a defined membership record before a party conducts a primary, congress or convention.

That can reduce uncertainty over who is eligible to participate.

But it also means that political parties need to manage membership records carefully.

A politician who joins a party after the relevant register has been submitted may not automatically acquire the right to participate in a particular primary simply because the person has become a party member.

Likewise, a party cannot simply replace the register submitted to INEC with a different internal document for the purpose of conducting the relevant exercise, according to the restored Section 77(6).

The requirements therefore place greater emphasis on documentation.

For candidates, party officials and lawyers, dates become particularly important.

The date of registration, the date of submission of the membership register and the date of the primary can all become relevant in a dispute.

Implications for party administration

The ruling also has consequences beyond the 2027 presidential contest.

The provisions apply to party congresses and conventions as well as primaries.

That means internal party administration must account for the statutory requirements whenever an exercise falls within the scope of the relevant sections.

Political parties are therefore likely to devote greater attention to the maintenance and documentation of their membership records.

A reliable register can help establish who is entitled to participate in an exercise.

A properly documented nomination process can also provide evidence if the exercise is later challenged.

For parties, this turns administrative compliance into an important component of election preparation.

For INEC, it reinforces the need to maintain accurate records and provide clear procedures for parties submitting their registers.

For courts, it creates a statutory framework against which disputes over party nominations can be considered.

The constitutional question

At the heart of the litigation was a broader question about the relationship between political-party autonomy and legislative regulation of elections.

Political parties have internal structures, constitutions and rules.

At the same time, elections are regulated by the Constitution and legislation enacted by the National Assembly.

The ZLP challenge questioned whether Parliament had gone too far in regulating membership registers and nomination procedures.

The Supreme Court's answer was that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution.

The judgment therefore confirms the validity of Parliament's statutory regulation in the areas covered by those provisions.

That does not mean every internal party decision automatically becomes a matter for government intervention.

It means that where the law establishes specific requirements for electoral participation and candidate nomination, political parties must operate within those statutory boundaries.

The distinction between internal party affairs and regulated electoral procedures was central to the litigation.

Political campaign season continues

The Supreme Court judgment comes against the backdrop of an increasingly active 2027 political environment.

INEC has already opened the campaign period for the presidential and National Assembly elections, followed by the campaign period for governorship and State House of Assembly contests.

Parties are therefore increasingly focused on presenting their candidates to voters.

The legal issues surrounding nominations could nevertheless remain active alongside campaign activities.

Candidates may continue campaigning while disputes concerning their eligibility or nomination procedures are examined.

Where a dispute reaches court, the timing of proceedings can become significant because election calendars impose deadlines.

This makes early resolution of nomination disputes important to the political parties and candidates involved.

At the same time, public discussion of such disputes requires careful distinction between allegations, pending cases and established judicial decisions.

The role of courts in electoral disputes

Nigeria's electoral system provides a series of legal mechanisms through which disputes can be challenged.

The Supreme Court's September 24 decision illustrates one part of that system.

The case moved from the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court.

At each stage, the parties presented legal arguments about the constitutionality and application of the Electoral Act.

The apex court's decision is now authoritative on the constitutional question addressed in the case.

However, other disputes concerning individual nominations can raise different facts and legal questions.

A court considering whether a particular candidate complied with the membership-register requirements may need to examine documents specific to that candidate and party.

That process is separate from the Supreme Court's determination that the statutory provisions themselves are valid.

What political parties may need to review

In practical terms, political parties preparing for 2027 may need to review several categories of documentation.

These include the membership register submitted to INEC, evidence of when it was submitted, records showing the names contained in the register and documentation concerning the conduct of the relevant primary or consensus process.

They may also need to ensure that internal records correspond with the statutory requirements.

Where a party believes its processes were compliant, it can rely on its records if questions arise.

Where an opponent challenges a nomination, the dispute may ultimately require the relevant evidence to be examined by an electoral authority or court.

The precise response will vary by party and by election.

No single administrative action can resolve every possible dispute because the facts of each nomination exercise can differ.

A legal development, not an electoral prediction

The Supreme Court's ruling has generated extensive political discussion because it affects the rules under which parties prepare for the 2027 elections.

It should nevertheless be understood primarily as a legal development.

The judgment does not determine which political party will win an election.

It does not determine which candidate voters will support.

It does not itself decide the outcome of any 2027 contest.

Its significance lies in the rules that political parties must follow when maintaining membership records and selecting candidates.

Those rules now have the authority of the Supreme Court's interpretation of their constitutionality.

The political consequences, if any, will depend on how parties implement the requirements, whether specific nominations are challenged and how courts and electoral authorities resolve those disputes.

INEC's neutrality and the election process

The timing of the judgment also coincides with renewed statements from INEC about its institutional neutrality.

INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan said on September 28 that the commission has no candidates or political party and that its interest is to uphold the will of Nigerian voters.

He made the statement during a visit to the Emir of Zazzau as part of preparations for the commission's zonal readiness assessment and engagement with staff.

That position is relevant to the implementation of the restored Electoral Act provisions.

INEC is expected to administer the rules regardless of the political party involved.

The commission's handling of membership registers, nomination documentation and other electoral requirements will therefore be closely watched by all parties.

What to watch next

Several developments are likely to receive attention as parties adjust to the judgment.

One is whether INEC issues additional guidance on the practical application of the restored provisions.

Another is whether parties conduct internal reviews of their nomination procedures.

Legal challenges involving specific candidates may also provide courts with opportunities to interpret how the restored provisions apply to particular facts.

The Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment will be important to lawyers and political parties because detailed judicial reasoning can provide greater clarity than initial reports of a ruling.

That reasoning may help determine the precise boundaries of the decision and the manner in which lower courts and electoral authorities should approach subsequent disputes.

The handling of any such cases will also help clarify questions that have emerged around completed primaries, party membership and political defections.

A new legal baseline for the 2027 cycle

The September 24 judgment has established a new legal baseline for political parties preparing for Nigeria's 2027 elections.

Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 are back in force after the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision that had invalidated them.

The rules require parties to pay close attention to membership registers submitted to INEC, restrict the use of alternative registers for relevant party exercises and provide statutory consequences for failure to comply.

The law also provides direct primaries or consensus as the recognised nomination methods under Section 84(2).

The judgment does not automatically cancel the candidacies of politicians who have already emerged from primaries.

Nor does it establish that every party complied or failed to comply with the restored provisions.

Those are questions that depend on individual facts and, where contested, the appropriate legal process.

For the political parties, the immediate task is therefore compliance and documentation.

For candidates, it is understanding the legal status of their nominations.

For INEC, it is implementing the electoral framework consistently.

For the courts, it may mean resolving further disputes where parties or candidates challenge the application of the restored provisions.

And for voters, the development provides another example of how Nigeria's electoral rules can change through judicial interpretation during an election cycle.

The 2027 political contest will continue to be shaped by campaigns, party organisation and voter choices, but the legal framework governing how candidates reach the ballot has now been clarified on an important point.

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the disputed Electoral Act provisions.

What remains is how political parties, candidates, INEC and the courts apply that ruling to the many individual nomination processes already conducted and those that may still arise before the 2027 elections.