The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has shifted attention from the constitutionality of the law to a more practical question: whether political parties and their candidates complied with its requirements before securing nominations for the 2027 elections.
A seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, on Thursday restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act after overturning the Court of Appeal’s decision which had declared the provisions unconstitutional.
The ruling reinstated the earlier decision of the Federal High Court, which had dismissed a suit filed by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and awarded N2 million in costs against the party.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not disqualify any candidate.
Instead, the judgment has brought renewed attention to the legal requirements governing party membership, membership registers, primaries, consensus arrangements and defections — issues that could become central to pre-election litigation ahead of 2027.
Party registers become critical
One of the most significant provisions restored by the Supreme Court is Section 77(5), which requires only members whose names appear in a political party’s membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention to participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6) further requires parties to use the register submitted to INEC during their nomination exercises.
Section 77(7) states that a party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period cannot field a candidate.
These provisions could place greater emphasis on the dates politicians joined parties and when their names were entered into the relevant registers.
This is particularly significant for politicians who defected shortly before primaries and subsequently secured tickets in their new parties.
Defections under renewed scrutiny
Several high-profile candidates fall within circumstances that could generate legal questions under the restored provisions.
In Rivers State, APC governorship candidate Kingsley Chinda moved from the PDP to the APC before emerging as the ruling party’s candidate.
Questions have already been raised over the timing of his movement and his membership status in relation to the APC nomination process.
However, the Supreme Court did not examine Chinda’s case and did not make any finding against his nomination.
A similar issue could arise in Gombe, where former minister Isa Pantami moved from the APC to the PDP after withdrawing from the APC governorship primary.
Pantami later secured the PDP ticket through a voice-affirmation process, but his nomination has already become the subject of separate litigation.
The Federal High Court in Gombe recently nullified his nomination and ordered the PDP to conduct another primary. The party scheduled September 29 for the fresh exercise.
Waivers face fresh legal questions
The ruling could also place renewed attention on the use of party waivers.
Former deputy Senate president Ovie Omo-Agege left the APC after losing its Delta Central senatorial primary and subsequently joined the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
The NDC granted him a waiver before he emerged as its Delta Central candidate through consensus.
Former Delta State House of Assembly Speaker Victor Ochei followed a broadly similar path, leaving the APC and later joining the NDC, which granted him a waiver to participate in its Delta North senatorial nomination process.
The central legal question in such cases is whether an internal party waiver can satisfy — or override — requirements imposed directly by the Electoral Act.
Omo-Agege has maintained that the Supreme Court ruling did not disqualify him and said his name was contained in the NDC membership register submitted to INEC within the required period.
Donald Duke’s case already before court
The presidential candidacy of former Cross River State governor Donald Duke presents another example of how the restored provisions could become relevant in existing litigation.
Duke joined the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) shortly before its presidential primary on May 25 and subsequently emerged as the party’s candidate.
His emergence was challenged at the Federal High Court by PRP aspirant Yakubu Kingsley, who alleged that Duke was not a party member when the membership register was submitted to INEC on May 4.
The court has reserved judgment for November 2.
The Supreme Court’s latest decision does not resolve that dispute. Any determination will depend on the evidence and the specific facts presented before the Federal High Court.
The bigger issue: dates and documents
The immediate significance of the Supreme Court ruling may therefore lie less in the names of individual candidates and more in the documents surrounding their nominations.
For candidates who changed parties, received waivers or emerged through consensus, several questions could become important:
– When did the candidate officially join the party?
– Was the candidate’s name included in the membership register submitted to INEC?
– When was the register submitted?
– Did the candidate participate in the required nomination process?
– Was a waiver granted, and what exactly did the waiver cover?
– Did the candidate emerge through a process permitted by the Electoral Act and the party’s rules?
– Were the statutory timelines followed?
Lawyer and policy specialist Yusuf Manjo has similarly pointed to party membership, nomination procedures and statutory compliance as issues that could determine future challenges.
He also cautioned that an internal party waiver may not automatically override a requirement imposed by legislation.
More nomination disputes could emerge
The implications could extend beyond the five candidates whose circumstances have already attracted attention.
Political parties across the country have recorded defections, fresh primaries, substitutions, consensus arrangements and the emergence of candidates who joined new parties relatively close to nomination exercises.
Each case will, however, depend on its own facts.
A defection by itself does not establish that a candidate violated the Electoral Act. Likewise, receiving a party waiver does not automatically establish that a nomination is invalid.
The decisive evidence in any challenge would likely include party membership records, INEC filings, dates of registration, nomination documents, party constitutions and the circumstances surrounding the relevant primary or consensus arrangement.
From constitutional dispute to compliance battles
The Supreme Court has now settled the constitutional question surrounding the disputed provisions by restoring Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act.
The political and legal focus may consequently shift to enforcement.
As the 2027 elections approach, party membership registers and nomination records could become increasingly important in determining whether challenges against candidates succeed or fail.
For the candidates already being discussed, however, the Supreme Court judgment itself is not a disqualification order.
Their individual positions can only be determined through the facts of their respective cases and, where applicable, decisions by competent courts.
