The Supreme Court’s decision affirming the validity of Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act 2026 (as amended) has triggered fresh uncertainty among political parties and candidates ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The provisions at the centre of the dispute concern political party membership registers and the methods through which parties nominate candidates for elections.
The apex court, on Thursday, upheld an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in a case instituted by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), which had challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the Electoral Act.
The ZLP had argued that Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Act were inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and amounted to interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
Section 77 contains provisions relating to political parties’ membership registers, while Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods of nominating candidates.
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar, had dismissed the ZLP’s suit in a judgment delivered on May 5, 2026.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the party appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in a case marked CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026.
On July 16, 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and voided provisions relating to party membership registers and primaries.
The decision prompted INEC to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment of the appellate court.
After hearing arguments from the parties, a seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, reserved judgment.
Delivering its judgment on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of INEC and set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision. The apex court also upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court and awarded N2 million in costs against the ZLP.
In separate judgments, the Supreme Court also dismissed appeals filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Youth Party against INEC.
The court dismissed the SDP appeal on its merits, while the Youth Party’s appeal was struck out following an objection by INEC. The apex court held that the appeal was incompetent because it had been filed one day outside the prescribed period.
The judgments have since generated differing interpretations among political parties and supporters of candidates whose political histories involve movement from one party to another.
Some supporters have interpreted the decision as potentially affecting politicians who defected from one political party to another after participating in previous party primaries. Others, however, argue that the judgment does not automatically invalidate the candidacies of such politicians.
Among the politicians whose 2027 ambitions have come under discussion are former Inspector-General of Police Mohammed Adamu in Nasarawa State, former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Ali Pantami in Gombe State, and former House of Representatives Minority Leader Kingsley Chinda in Rivers State.
Others include Senator Shehu Buba Umar of Bauchi State, Mohammed Nami of Niger State, Senator Saliu Mustapha of Kwara State and other candidates who changed political platforms before emerging as candidates for the 2027 elections.
Buba: Verdict Cannot Apply Retrospectively
The Peoples Redemption Party governorship candidate in Bauchi State, Senator Shehu Buba Umar, has rejected suggestions that the Supreme Court judgment could affect his eligibility to contest the 2027 governorship election.
In a statement through his Special Adviser on Media and Communication, Sabo Mohammed, Buba said he had complied with all applicable electoral requirements.
He argued that the legal position established by the Supreme Court became effective with the September 24 judgment and should not be applied retrospectively to electoral activities lawfully completed under the framework that existed before the ruling.
According to him, party membership registration, primaries and candidate nominations conducted before the judgment were undertaken in accordance with the rules applicable at the time.
Buba said he remained confident in his candidacy and urged his supporters to disregard what he described as misleading interpretations of the judgment.
“Our ambition to clinch the governorship of Bauchi State remains firmly on course. By the special grace of the Almighty Allah (SWT), there is no going back,” he said.
Nasarawa: Supporters Differ Over Adamu’s Candidacy
The Supreme Court ruling has also generated different reactions in Nasarawa State, particularly among supporters of former IGP Mohammed Adamu and those backing the APC governorship candidate, Ahmed Aliyu Wadada.
While some of Wadada’s supporters celebrated the judgment on social media, interpreting it as potentially affecting Adamu’s candidacy, Adamu’s campaign organisation said the ruling did not disqualify him.
The Director of Digital Media and Strategic Communications of the Mohammed Abubakar Adamu Campaign Organisation, High Chief Otaru Douglas, said the judgment merely affirmed the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
Douglas said no court had invalidated the SDP membership register, the primary that produced Adamu or directed INEC to remove him from the ballot.
He maintained that Adamu’s candidacy remained valid and urged supporters not to be distracted by what he described as premature interpretations of the ruling.
Gombe: PDP Reviewing Verdict
In Gombe State, the Peoples Democratic Party said it was studying the implications of the judgment.
The party’s State Publicity Secretary, Abdulkadir Ahmed Dukku, said Isa Ali Pantami remained eligible to participate in the party’s rescheduled governorship primary alongside Khamisu Ahmed Mailantarki and Usman Aliyu Garry.
The clarification followed a Federal High Court judgment in Gombe which nullified the party’s earlier governorship primary and ordered a rerun.
Dukku said the party was studying the legal implications of the various judgments and urged members and supporters to remain calm.
He said the party would take all necessary steps within the law to protect its interests and preserve the integrity of its democratic processes.
Rivers: Chinda’s Candidacy Under Scrutiny
In Rivers State, questions have also emerged over the possible implications of the Supreme Court judgment for Kingsley Chinda, the APC governorship candidate.
Chinda emerged from the APC governorship primary held on May 21, 2026, after previously serving as a member of the PDP and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
His resignation from the PDP was announced on the floor of the National Assembly on June 2, 2026.
The question surrounding his candidacy centres largely on his membership of the APC and whether he was captured in the party’s membership register within the period required by the Electoral Act.
Supporters of opposition parties in the state have interpreted the Supreme Court judgment as potentially affecting his candidacy, although the precise legal consequences will depend on the facts of the case and the application of the court’s ruling.
Kwara: PDP Rejects Concerns Over Mustapha
In Kwara State, the PDP said the judgment did not affect its candidates, including Senator Saliu Mustapha, who is contesting for the Kwara Central senatorial seat.
The party’s State Publicity Secretary, Olusegun Olushola Adewara, said the PDP had complied with the necessary procedures in selecting its candidates.
He explained that Mustapha received the required party waiver before participating in the nomination process after the withdrawal of the initial candidate.
Adewara argued that once the relevant waiver had been granted, Mustapha became eligible to participate in the party’s primary.
He also said the party’s candidate list had already been published by INEC and remained available for public scrutiny.
Legal Implications Remain Subject to Interpretation
Legal practitioners and political analysts have cautioned against assuming that the Supreme Court judgment automatically disqualifies every politician who defected from one political party to another.
Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Kaduna Branch, Baba Lawal Aliyu, said the judgment reinforced the statutory framework governing INEC’s regulation of political party activities.
He said political parties would now need to pay closer attention to requirements relating to membership registers, congresses, primaries and candidate nomination.
Aliyu noted that future disputes could focus on whether individual political parties and candidates complied with the requirements of the Electoral Act.
He also stressed that the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court would be important in determining the precise scope and application of the judgment.
Meanwhile, activist Samuel Yusuf said the judgment did not, by itself, establish that every politician who changed political parties was ineligible to contest.
He said questions surrounding individual candidates would have to be determined based on the facts of each case, the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and subsequent judicial interpretation.
With political parties already preparing for the 2027 elections, the Supreme Court’s decision is expected to increase scrutiny of membership registers, party primaries and candidate nomination procedures.
The practical effect of the judgment on individual candidates is likely to depend on the specific circumstances of each case, including when they joined their respective parties, whether their names appeared on the relevant membership registers and whether the nomination processes complied with the Electoral Act.
