The nominations of some candidates seeking office in the 2027 elections have come under renewed scrutiny following a Supreme Court judgment restoring provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing party membership registers and the conduct of primaries.
The ruling has raised compliance questions for the All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), NDC and other parties, particularly over candidates who changed political platforms around the period of their nominations.
However, the judgment does not automatically disqualify any candidate. The Supreme Court distinguished between a person’s qualification to contest an election and a political party’s compliance with the legal requirements for nominating that person.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has received the certified true copy of the judgment and is reviewing its implications. The commission is expected to determine this week how it will implement the restored provisions.
A seven-member panel presided over by Justice Adamu Jauro restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act on September 24, overturning an earlier Court of Appeal decision that declared them unconstitutional. Justice Emmanuel Agim delivered the lead judgment.
Sections 77(5) and 77(6) restrict participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions to members whose names appear on the register submitted to INEC. They also prohibit parties from using a different register for those exercises.
Section 77(7) bars a party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period from fielding candidates, while Section 84(2) provides for nominations through direct primaries or consensus.
Although the court made no finding against any candidate, the restored provisions have brought membership dates, party registers and nomination procedures into sharper focus.
In Rivers State, questions have arisen over the APC governorship nomination of Kingsley Chinda, who emerged as the party’s candidate on May 21 after serving as minority leader of the House of Representatives on the PDP platform.
His resignation from the House leadership took effect on April 23, and he formally defected to the APC on June 2. The sequence has prompted scrutiny of when he became an APC member and whether his name appeared on the register used for the primary. The Rivers APC maintains that his nomination complied with the law.
In Delta State, former Deputy Senate President Ovie Omo-Agege and former state House of Assembly Speaker Victor Ochei moved from the APC to the NDC after receiving waivers.
Omo-Agege resigned from the APC on May 22 after losing its Delta Central senatorial primary to Senator Ede Dafinone. He subsequently secured the NDC ticket, while Ochei emerged as the party’s candidate for Delta North. The NDC insists that both nominations remain valid.
Former minister Isa Pantami’s PDP governorship nomination in Gombe State has also attracted attention. Pantami withdrew from the APC primary in May, joined the PDP and initially emerged through voice affirmation.
A Federal High Court later nullified that primary for procedural and legal non-compliance but declined to disqualify him on account of his previous APC membership. Pantami subsequently won the PDP’s fresh direct primary on September 29.
Similar questions have been raised over the PDP senatorial nominations of Saliu Mustapha and Kolo Baba Jiya in Kwara State, as well as former senator Iyabo Obasanjo’s Ogun Central candidacy. Their parties and supporters reject suggestions that the Supreme Court judgment automatically invalidated their tickets.
In a separate case, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a membership-register challenge against PRP presidential candidate Donald Duke on September 30. The court held that aspirant Yakubu Kingsley’s suit was statute-barred and unproven.
No prominent ADC candidate has been formally identified as affected by the restored provisions, while party officials maintain that their nomination exercises complied with the law.
Human rights lawyer Deji Adeyanju has urged INEC to remove affected candidates from its portal. The commission, however, says it will study the certified judgment before taking a position.
INEC’s response will help define the next phase of the controversy. Any subsequent legal challenges are likely to turn on documentary evidence of membership, the registers submitted to the commission, the nomination procedures adopted and proof of specific breaches.
