By Simpson Global Media News Desk
Nigeria’s preparations for the 2027 general elections have entered a new legal phase after the Supreme Court restored four disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 dealing with political-party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
The unanimous judgment, delivered on September 24 by a seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro, overturned a July decision of the Court of Appeal that had declared the provisions unconstitutional.
The restored provisions are Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. They concern the membership registers political parties submit to the Independent National Electoral Commission and use during primaries, as well as the statutory methods available to parties for nominating candidates.
The decision has immediate relevance because political parties have already conducted most of their primaries for the January 2027 presidential and National Assembly elections and the February 2027 governorship and State House of Assembly elections.
The judgment itself did not name individual politicians or declare specific candidates disqualified.
Instead, it resolved the constitutional question surrounding the disputed provisions.
That distinction has become central to the debate now emerging among lawyers, political parties and election observers.
Some legal practitioners cited by Sunday PUNCH said the judgment does not automatically invalidate nominations that have already been concluded. Others said individual cases could still generate litigation if facts surrounding party membership, primary procedures or defection are challenged.
The Independent National Electoral Commission has yet to publicly provide a detailed explanation of how it intends to apply the judgment to completed nomination processes.
That leaves the electoral commission with a significant implementation task as parties move deeper into the 2027 election calendar.
What The Supreme Court Decided
The case arose from a challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party against provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The party argued that the disputed provisions interfered with the constitutional rights of political parties to manage their internal affairs and select candidates for elections.
The original suit was filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the case on May 5, 2026.
The Zenith Labour Party subsequently appealed to the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.
On July 16, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and struck down Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2).
The appellate court considered the provisions inconsistent with constitutional protections governing political parties, including Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution.
INEC challenged that decision at the Supreme Court.
The commission argued for the restoration of the provisions.
The Supreme Court heard the appeal on September 16 and reserved judgment.
Eight days later, the seven-member panel delivered its ruling.
The apex court upheld INEC’s appeal and restored the provisions that the Court of Appeal had voided.
Premium Times reported that the Supreme Court held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution.
The court also awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party, according to reports on the judgment.
The ruling effectively restored the statutory framework contained in the Electoral Act concerning membership registers and candidate nomination.
What Sections 77 And 84 Mean
The legal provisions at the centre of the case are important because they establish rules for how political parties organise their nomination processes.
Section 77(5) provides that only persons whose names are contained in the membership register submitted to INEC within the required period can participate in party primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(6) prevents a party from using a different membership register for those activities.
Section 77(7) provides consequences for a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period.
Section 84(2) deals with the procedure for nominating candidates and provides for direct primaries or consensus.
The provisions were controversial because political parties traditionally exercise substantial control over their internal nomination procedures.
The Zenith Labour Party argued that statutory requirements of this nature could amount to interference with the constitutional autonomy of political parties.
The Supreme Court's decision has now settled the constitutional challenge in favour of the continued operation of the disputed provisions.
The practical question is how those provisions should be applied to political activities that have already taken place.
The Timing Makes The Judgment Significant
The timing of the ruling is particularly important.
Nigeria is already well into the electoral calendar for 2027.
INEC has published the final list of presidential and National Assembly candidates.
The commission released the final presidential candidate list on September 12, according to reports on its election preparations. The list contains 18 presidential candidates sponsored by 18 political parties.
The political parties have also moved into campaign activities.
Presidential and National Assembly campaigns are already under way under the 2027 electoral timetable, while governorship and State House of Assembly campaigns are also moving through their scheduled period.
That means the Supreme Court judgment was delivered after many nomination processes had already been completed.
This is why questions over retrospectivity and individual candidacies have emerged.
The Supreme Court decided whether the statutory provisions were constitutionally valid.
It did not, in the case before it, examine the individual circumstances of every candidate who has emerged through a political party primary.
The difference between those two issues is legally significant.
Lawyers Differ On The Practical Effect
Legal opinions reported after the ruling have not been completely uniform.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Salman Jawondo told Sunday PUNCH that the Supreme Court judgment did not automatically affect completed nominations.
According to him, the judgment was a general interpretation of the law and could not by itself empower INEC to remove candidates whose nominations had already been completed.
He said any challenge would have to come through the appropriate legal process and within the applicable time limit.
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Bolaji Ayorinde, similarly said the judgment did not create an automatic basis for disqualifying candidates.
Ayorinde said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional framework governing eligibility and urged INEC to implement it in a manner that would not disenfranchise candidates or political parties.
But Abdulkareem Azeez, chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association's Ikirun Branch, offered a more fact-specific interpretation.
He said the Supreme Court had determined the constitutional validity of the disputed sections but had not made factual findings about the membership status, primary procedures or defection timelines of individual candidates.
In his view, those questions could still arise in individual cases.
That means the Supreme Court ruling has clarified one part of the legal landscape while leaving factual questions to be dealt with where specific disputes arise.
The Membership Register Question
One of the most important issues concerns political-party membership registers.
Under the restored provisions, the register submitted to INEC has statutory significance during party primaries.
The law requires eligible participants in a primary to be drawn from the relevant register submitted to the commission within the prescribed period.
This is intended to create an identifiable membership base for the conduct of party congresses and primaries.
The legal controversy arose partly because political parties have historically maintained their own internal membership structures, and disputes can arise over who was actually a member at the time of a primary.
The restored provisions provide a statutory reference point.
That could become important where an aspirant alleges that people who participated in a primary were not eligible under the applicable membership register.
It could also become relevant where questions arise over a candidate who moved from one political party to another shortly before a nomination exercise.
However, the existence of the provision does not mean every candidate who changed parties is automatically disqualified.
A candidate's individual circumstances would still have to be examined against the law and the relevant facts.
Defections Could Face Greater Scrutiny
Defections have been a recurring feature of Nigerian politics in the run-up to the 2027 elections.
Politicians have moved between major political parties while seeking new nominations.
The Supreme Court judgment has prompted renewed attention to whether such movements could create disputes over party membership and eligibility to participate in nomination processes.
Sunday PUNCH identified several politicians whose nomination processes could potentially attract scrutiny, including former Inspector-General of Police Mohammed Adamu, who emerged as the Social Democratic Party governorship candidate in Nasarawa State through a substitution primary; former House of Representatives Minority Leader Kingsley Chinda, who emerged as the All Progressives Congress governorship candidate in Rivers State; and Senator Saliu Mustapha, who moved from the APC to the Peoples Democratic Party before obtaining the PDP senatorial ticket for Kwara Central.
The newspaper did not report that these candidates had been disqualified.
Indeed, the Supreme Court judgment itself did not specifically disqualify them.
The examples illustrate instead the kinds of factual questions that could arise if an aspirant or another person with legal standing challenges a nomination.
The relevant questions could include the date of a defection, the date of admission into a new political party, the membership register applicable to the primary and whether the candidate's participation complied with the statutory requirements.
Those questions would need to be resolved individually.
Gombe Already Has A Fresh Primary
One of the clearest examples of how election litigation can affect a party's nomination process is already unfolding in Gombe State.
The Peoples Democratic Party has scheduled a fresh governorship primary for September 29 following a Federal High Court judgment that nullified its earlier primary.
The original PDP primary was conducted on May 26 and produced former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Pantami.
Pantami had joined the PDP after leaving the APC and emerged through a voice-affirmation process.
Another PDP governorship aspirant, Usman Garry, challenged the process.
On September 24, the Federal High Court in Gombe nullified the earlier primary and ordered the party to conduct another exercise within 30 days.
The PDP subsequently announced September 29 as the date for the fresh primary.
The party directed eligible delegates to assemble at their ward areas to participate in the exercise.
It also called for an orderly process.
The Gombe situation is legally distinct from the Supreme Court's ruling on Sections 77 and 84 because the fresh primary arises from a separate Federal High Court case.
Nevertheless, the two developments illustrate the increasingly important role of litigation in determining how political parties produce candidates.
The Isa Pantami Case
Pantami's case has attracted attention because it combines party defection, a primary election and subsequent litigation.
He was previously associated with the APC before moving to the PDP.
He then emerged from the PDP's May 26 governorship primary.
The Federal High Court's decision has now required the party to conduct another exercise.
That means the September 29 primary could produce a new outcome or reproduce the earlier choice, depending on the participation and result.
The process is also taking place only months before the 2027 governorship election.
The case demonstrates why party nomination disputes can have consequences beyond internal party politics.
Once a court nullifies a primary, a political party may have to repeat the exercise while the election timetable continues to move forward.
What The Supreme Court Judgment Does Not Say
A major source of potential confusion is the difference between restoring a legal provision and declaring individual candidates ineligible.
The Supreme Court did the former.
It restored the disputed sections of the Electoral Act.
It did not issue a general order removing candidates from the 2027 ballot.
This distinction has been emphasised by lawyers quoted by Sunday PUNCH.
Azeez said the Supreme Court did not make factual findings about individual candidates' membership status, primary conduct or defection timelines.
Similarly, Jawondo said INEC could not simply use the judgment as a blanket instrument to delist candidates whose nomination processes had already been completed.
That means reports suggesting that the ruling automatically invalidates particular candidates should be treated cautiously unless supported by a specific court order or an official decision applying the law to that candidate.
The current legal position is that the statutory provisions have been restored.
The effect on any particular nomination would depend on the facts and the applicable legal procedure.
INEC’s Role Becomes More Important
The Independent National Electoral Commission now faces the task of implementing the Supreme Court decision.
INEC was a central party to the litigation because it appealed the Court of Appeal judgment that had voided the provisions.
The commission's position was therefore vindicated by the Supreme Court ruling.
But implementation may prove more complicated than the legal victory itself.
INEC has already received and published candidate information for the 2027 elections.
It must now determine how the restored provisions interact with processes that took place while the Court of Appeal judgment was in force.
The commission will also have to respond to complaints that may arise from aspirants who believe a primary was conducted contrary to the restored law.
As of the publication of the Sunday PUNCH report, attempts to obtain a detailed response from INEC on how it would implement the judgment had not produced an official clarification.
That leaves some questions open.
The Legal Timetable Matters
Election litigation in Nigeria operates within strict statutory and constitutional time limits.
That is particularly important for pre-election cases.
A Federal High Court practice-direction amendment introduced in 2026 provides procedures intended to accelerate pre-election litigation, including arrangements for court registries to receive pre-election filings on weekends and public holidays.
The objective is to reduce procedural delays in cases where election deadlines are approaching.
The significance is straightforward.
A political dispute that begins in September cannot necessarily be resolved through an unlimited legal process because the 2027 elections are already scheduled.
The courts must deal with disputes while political parties and INEC continue their preparations.
That creates pressure on litigants to file cases promptly and on courts to determine matters within the relevant statutory periods.
The Difference Between Party And Election Litigation
Another important distinction is between an internal party dispute and an electoral dispute.
A political party may have rules governing its own primary.
An aspirant who believes those rules were breached may challenge the process through the courts.
But the Electoral Act also establishes statutory requirements.
The Constitution establishes another layer of rules.
INEC operates within that legal framework.
The resulting system means that a nomination dispute can involve party rules, the Electoral Act, constitutional provisions, INEC regulations and judicial precedents.
The Supreme Court's September 24 decision adds clarity to one part of that framework by confirming the validity of Sections 77(5) to 77(7) and 84(2).
But the application of those provisions to particular events can still depend on the facts of each case.
Why The 2027 Election Calendar Matters
The 2027 presidential and National Assembly election is scheduled for January 16, 2027.
The governorship and State House of Assembly elections are scheduled for February 6, 2027.
That leaves only a few months for parties and candidates to settle outstanding nomination disputes.
INEC's publication of the final presidential candidate list on September 12 marked another major stage in the electoral process.
The release means that parties and candidates are now operating within a more defined electoral field.
But governorship and legislative contests at the state level still have nomination and substitution issues that can generate disputes.
The Supreme Court ruling therefore arrives at a point when political parties are already campaigning while legal questions about some nomination processes remain active.
Campaigns Continue While Litigation Moves
The existence of litigation does not automatically suspend political activity.
Political parties continue campaigning unless a court order or electoral rule prevents a particular activity.
The Supreme Court judgment therefore does not stop the 2027 election timetable.
Instead, it clarifies the legal rules under which political parties must operate.
That could lead to renewed scrutiny of party nomination processes, particularly where an aspirant believes that the statutory membership-register requirements were not followed.
Parties will also need to ensure that future nomination exercises, substitutions and replacement primaries comply with the restored law.
The Gombe Primary As A Test Case
The September 29 Gombe PDP primary will be closely watched because it comes immediately after the Federal High Court nullified the earlier exercise.
The party has already instructed eligible delegates to participate.
The result will determine the candidate the party puts forward for the Gombe governorship election, subject to any subsequent legal challenge.
The exercise also demonstrates how rapidly a political party may need to respond to a court judgment.
The earlier primary was conducted on May 26.
The court nullified it on September 24.
The party announced a fresh primary for September 29.
That is only five days between the court decision and the scheduled replacement exercise.
Such compressed timelines place significant organisational demands on parties and electoral stakeholders.
Questions Over Retrospective Application
One of the most difficult legal questions concerns retrospectivity.
If the Supreme Court restores a statutory provision after a lower court had declared it unconstitutional, how should events that occurred during the period of the lower court ruling be treated?
That question has become relevant because the Court of Appeal's July 16 judgment and the Supreme Court's September 24 decision were separated by more than two months.
Political parties continued operating during that period.
Some nomination and substitution processes took place.
Some candidates changed parties.
Others emerged from primaries.
The Supreme Court did not issue individual rulings on each of those events.
That is why lawyers have emphasised the need for case-specific analysis.
Azeez said questions surrounding retrospective application would depend on the facts of individual cases.
The issue could therefore become the subject of future litigation if an aspirant argues that a nomination failed to meet a requirement that has now been restored.
Potential Focus On Party Registers
The membership register provisions could become particularly relevant.
A candidate or aspirant challenging a primary could ask whether the people who participated were listed on the relevant register submitted to INEC.
Another question could concern whether the register was submitted within the statutory period.
A third could involve whether the party used the same register during the actual primary.
These are factual questions.
They would require documentary evidence rather than political statements.
That could mean that future disputes depend heavily on party records, INEC records and evidence of the conduct of the primary.
Direct Primaries And Consensus
Section 84(2) also has implications for how parties select candidates.
The restored provision specifies direct primaries or consensus as the nomination methods.
That makes the conduct of party nominations another potential area of legal scrutiny.
A direct primary requires eligible party members to participate according to the applicable rules.
A consensus process involves agreement around a candidate under the conditions established by law and party rules.
The Supreme Court's restoration of the provision means political parties must continue to operate within that statutory framework.
Disputes could therefore arise where an aspirant argues that the process used by a party did not conform to the legally recognised method.
Again, however, a dispute does not automatically mean a candidate has been disqualified.
A court would have to examine the facts and the applicable law.
The Political Parties’ Responsibility
The ruling also places renewed responsibility on political parties.
Parties must maintain accurate membership records.
They must submit the relevant registers to INEC within the required periods.
They must use the appropriate register for primaries.
They must conduct nominations according to the legally recognised methods.
And they must ensure that candidates satisfy the relevant requirements.
These obligations are now backed by a Supreme Court judgment affirming the validity of the disputed provisions.
The ruling therefore removes the uncertainty created by the Court of Appeal's July decision.
But it does not remove the possibility of litigation over whether individual parties complied with the law.
The Role Of Aspirants
Aspirants also have a role in the process.
A politician who believes that a party primary was conducted improperly cannot simply assume that the issue will resolve itself.
Pre-election litigation has statutory deadlines.
Legal practitioners cited by Sunday PUNCH stressed that challenges must be brought by persons with the appropriate legal standing and within applicable time limits.
This is significant because election law does not generally allow disputes to remain unresolved indefinitely.
The legal system is designed around an electoral timetable.
That makes speed an important part of pre-election litigation.
No Automatic Cancellation Of The 2027 Election Process
The Supreme Court's decision does not cancel or restart Nigeria's 2027 electoral timetable.
INEC continues to organise the elections.
The presidential and National Assembly candidate lists have already been published.
Campaigns continue.
Political parties continue mobilisation.
The February governorship and State Assembly contests also remain on schedule.
What has changed is the legal certainty surrounding the four disputed provisions of the Electoral Act.
The Supreme Court has now held that they are constitutionally valid.
That provides a basis for INEC and political parties to proceed under the restored statutory framework.
What Happens Next
The immediate next stage will be implementation.
INEC is expected to apply the Supreme Court's ruling within the framework of its statutory responsibilities.
Political parties will continue campaigning and preparing for the 2027 elections.
At the same time, individuals who believe specific nomination processes violated the restored provisions may seek legal remedies, provided they meet the requirements for bringing such cases.
The Gombe PDP primary on September 29 is one immediate political event occurring alongside this legal development.
Other cases could emerge if aspirants challenge nomination processes involving membership registers, defection or primary procedures.
Whether those cases succeed will depend on the evidence and the applicable law.
A More Defined Legal Framework
The Supreme Court ruling has ended one constitutional dispute that had created uncertainty around the Electoral Act 2026.
The Court of Appeal had struck down the disputed provisions.
The Supreme Court has now restored them.
That means Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) remain part of Nigeria's electoral law for the 2027 cycle.
The more difficult questions now concern application.
How should the restored provisions be treated in relation to primaries conducted before the Supreme Court ruling?
How should INEC deal with nominations involving politicians who changed parties?
What happens where an aspirant challenges the membership register used at a primary?
Can an individual nomination be challenged based on circumstances that occurred before the Supreme Court restored the provisions?
Those questions will be answered through the relevant legal processes rather than by the Supreme Court's judgment alone.
The Road To 2027
Nigeria's 2027 elections are now moving into a period in which political campaigning and legal preparation are occurring simultaneously.
The Supreme Court's ruling adds another important element to that process.
Political parties know that the statutory provisions governing membership registers and candidate nomination remain valid.
INEC has a clearer legal basis for enforcing those requirements.
Aspirants and candidates know that disputes over nomination procedures can still be taken through the courts when the law permits.
And voters are entering an election period in which the final shape of many contests will increasingly be determined by the candidates whose nominations survive both political and legal scrutiny.
For now, the central fact is clear.
The Supreme Court has restored the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
It has not, however, issued a blanket order cancelling nominations or disqualifying individual politicians.
The next phase will therefore be about application — how INEC, political parties, candidates and courts interpret and enforce the restored provisions as the country moves toward the 2027 elections.
That distinction will remain important in the weeks ahead, particularly as fresh pre-election disputes emerge and parties work to ensure that their candidates and nomination processes comply with the law.
Comments
Post a Comment