THE Supreme Court’s decision to restore key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has put the spotlight on the nomination processes of several politicians who have already secured party tickets ahead of the 2027 elections.
The seven-member panel, led in the judgment by Justice Adamu Jauro, restored sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) after allowing an appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The apex court held that the provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and consequently overturned the court of appeal judgment that had declared them unconstitutional. It also restored the earlier federal high court decision dismissing the challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party.
The ruling has implications for how political parties conduct their primaries, maintain membership records and nominate candidates for elective offices.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court upholds final forfeiture of Emefiele-linked assets to Nigerian govt
What the restored provisions require
Section 77(5) requires only members whose names appear on a party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention to participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6) bars political parties from using a membership register different from the one submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses and conventions.
Under section 77(7), a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period cannot field a candidate in an election.
Section 84(2), meanwhile, provides that parties are to nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus.
The provisions had been challenged by the Zenith Labour Party, which argued that they amounted to interference in the internal affairs of political parties and conflicted with constitutional provisions recognising parties’ role in determining their candidates.
Related Articles
The federal high court initially dismissed the challenge. The court of appeal later declared the affected provisions unconstitutional, prompting INEC to approach the Supreme Court.
The apex court has now reversed the appellate decision and reinstated the trial court judgment.
Candidates facing questions over nomination
The Supreme Court ruling did not disqualify any candidate or directly invalidate any existing nomination.
However, the legality of individual nominations could become a matter for scrutiny where questions arise over compliance with the restored provisions, particularly the membership-register requirements and the mode through which a candidate emerged.
Among the politicians identified as potentially affected are Donald Duke, Kingsley Chinda, Isa Pantami, Ovie Omo-Agege and Victor Ochei.
READ ALSO: INEC bows to Supreme Court, restores Mark’s ADC leadership
Duke emerged as the Peoples Redemption Party’s presidential candidate after joining the party shortly before its May 25 primary.
His candidacy is already the subject of litigation. PRP aspirant Yakubu Kingsley filed a suit at the Federal High Court challenging Duke’s nomination, alleging that Duke was not a member of the PRP when the party submitted its membership register to INEC on May 4, 21 days before the primary.
Chinda emerged as the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate for Rivers State on May 21.
His emergence followed questions over his political affiliation at the time. He had appeared before the APC screening panel days before the primary without publicly announcing his defection from the Peoples Democratic Party.
Related Articles
His resignation as minority leader in the House of Representatives was later made public in June, with Speaker Tajudeen Abbas saying the resignation letter was dated April 23.
lso resigned from the PDP and whether his name was included in the APC membership register submitted to INEC.\Isa Pantami
Also, Isa Pantami’s situation has already produced a separate court ruling. He withdrew from the APC governorship primary in May, subsequently joined the PDP and emerged as its candidate for the Gombe governorship through a voice-affirmation process.
Two PDP aspirants, Hamisu Mailantarki and Usman Garry, challenged his emergence, arguing that Pantami had neither purchased a nomination form nor participated in the party’s screening exercise.
The Federal High Court Gombe subsequently nullified his nomination and ordered the party to conduct a fresh primary. The PDP scheduled another primary for September 29.
More so, Omo-Agege’s case involves a change of political party after an earlier primary contest.
He contested the APC senatorial primary for Delta Central in May but lost to Ede Dafinone. He subsequently resigned from the APC on May 22 and joined the Nigeria Democratic Congress.
The NDC later granted him a waiver to contest its Delta Central senatorial ticket, which he secured through a consensus arrangement.
The restored Electoral Act provisions could therefore bring renewed attention to the circumstances surrounding such waivers, membership records and the nomination process, although the Supreme Court judgment itself did not make a determination on Omo-Agege’s candidature.
Related Articles
