Fresh legal battles may be brewing over political party primaries ahead of the 2027 elections following the Supreme Court’s restoration of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing party membership registers and candidate nominations.
The controversy follows Thursday’s unanimous judgment by the Supreme Court in appeal No. SC/CR/495/2026, in which the seven-member panel, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act.
While the judgment did not automatically invalidate nominations already concluded, it is not clear which provisions could apply to individual candidates and primaries, leaving the Independent National Electoral Commission with a major implementation question.
The provisions require parties to submit membership registers to INEC within the stipulated period and use the registers for their primaries, while Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus in the nomination of candidates.
The apex court’s decision reversed the July 16 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had declared the disputed provisions unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court had earlier heard INEC’s appeal on September 16 after the Federal High Court dismissed the challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party.
But the judgment has raised questions over the fate of primaries already conducted, particularly where candidates had defected from one party to another before securing tickets.
Among those whose nomination processes could attract scrutiny are 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 defected from the APC to the Peoples Democratic Party before picking the PDP senatorial ticket for Kwara Central.
Former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, is also at the centre of a separate legal dispute after a Federal High Court in Gombe nullified the PDP primary that produced him and ordered the party to conduct a fresh exercise.
None of the candidates was specifically disqualified by the Supreme Court judgment.
PDP orders fresh primary in Gombe
Already, the PDP has fixed September 29, for the conduct of a fresh governorship primary election in Gombe State following the nullification of its May 26, 2026, primary by the Federal High Court sitting in Gombe.
The court, on September 24, 2026, nullified the earlier primary, which produced Pantami and ordered the PDP to conduct a fresh exercise within 30 days.
Pantami emerged from the earlier primary through voice affirmation after defecting from the All Progressives Congress to the PDP. His emergence was challenged by another PDP governorship aspirant, Usman Garry.
The PDP Public Relations Officer in the state, Abdulkadir Dukku, said the party had directed all eligible delegates to assemble at their respective ward areas for the fresh primary.
Dukku said, “All eligible delegates are hereby directed to assemble at their respective ward areas to participate in the exercise and vote for the aspirant of their choice.”
The party also urged its members, supporters and well-wishers to cooperate with the arrangements for the fresh primary.
Dukku called on participants to conduct themselves peacefully and orderly throughout the exercise and comply with the guidelines put in place for the conduct of the election.
The September 29 exercise is expected to produce the PDP candidate for the governorship election in Gombe State.
Osun Senator rejects disqualification
Also, the Senator representing Osun East in the Senate, Olubiyi Fadeyi, on Saturday, dismissed insinuations that his re-election bid had been ended by the Supreme Court judgment.
Fadeyi, in a statement obtained in Osogbo on Saturday, said the process that made him the candidate of the PDP for the Osun Central Senatorial District in the 2027 polls adhered strictly to the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
Reacting to reports that the Supreme Court judgment had put paid to his ambition to return to the Senate, Fadeyi said those behind them were political opponents who were jittery over his acceptance and popularity.
The statement read in part, “For clarity’s sake, there is no clear evidence of Fadeyi’s disqualification from any court sitting; hence, the report of his alleged disqualification remains speculative and unfounded.
“The process to bestow the PDP ticket on Senator Fadeyi for a second term in office is clear, legal and approved by all relevant party executives. The PDP followed the provisions of electoral law, and everything was done in accordance with the law and the party’s laid-down rules.”
The lawmaker further said the issue relating to his candidacy remained an internal affair of the PDP, noting that it had been duly affirmed that he was the authentic candidate supported by the party.
Judgment does not invalidate nominations – SANs
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Kwara State, Salman Jawondo, said the judgment did not affect nominations that had already been concluded.
He told DECENCY GLOBAL NEWS that the judgment was a general interpretation of the law and could not, by itself, empower INEC to delist candidates whose nominations had already been completed.
“It does not affect any nomination at all. INEC needs a fresh court pronouncement to delist them. Some people must complain before INEC can act,” Jawondo said.
The former Kwara Attorney-General said the judgment could not retrospectively invalidate completed electoral processes, adding that any challenge would have to be brought by a person with the requisite legal standing and within the applicable timeframe.
“As at the time the nomination was made, there was no such effect. It does not take effect on any previously done process. The judgment is generic and it is just an interpretation of the law,” he said.
Jawondo added that a person challenging a nomination must be an aspirant and file the action within 14 days of the occurrence being challenged.
“If you go to court to challenge those nominations, you cannot use the judgment on Thursday to challenge those nominations. So, in effect, anyone going to court is just wasting his or her time,” he said.
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Bolaji Ayorinde, said the judgment did not create a fresh basis for disqualifying candidates or disrupt preparations by political parties.
He said the Supreme Court had reaffirmed the constitutional framework governing eligibility to contest elections.
“I think the Supreme Court is being consistent and they have just restated the law as it should be. They are trying to protect the rights of parties to contest elections.
“There is no controversy with the judgment. It only gives the opportunity for aspirants to go and become candidates so that everybody will have a chance. It is a welcome decision,” Ayorinde added.
The SAN argued that the Electoral Act could not be applied in a manner that displaced constitutional qualifications for elective office.
“The only thing that can disqualify you as a candidate is the Constitution, not even the Electoral Act. As long as you are within the Constitution, you are protected. I don’t see the judgment creating any problem,” he said.
Ayorinde urged INEC to implement the judgment in a manner that would not disenfranchise candidates or political parties.
“The judgment does not affect the preparation of parties for the election. What do politicians do apart from prepare? They are all on the field. What is important for INEC is to make sure that everybody has a chance,” he added.
The Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikirun Branch, Osun State, Abdulkareem Azeez, however, said the judgment did not automatically invalidate the candidacies of politicians who had defected to new political parties.
He told DECENCY GLOBAL NEWS that the Supreme Court only affirmed the constitutional validity of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), without making factual findings on the membership status, primary elections or defection timelines of individual candidates.
Azeez said this was significant in cases involving candidates such as Pantami and Adamu, whose political movements preceded their respective primaries.
“No, the judgment does not automatically invalidate anyone’s candidacy. It only affirms that Sections 77(5)–(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 are constitutionally valid,” he said.
Azeez noted that Pantami, Adamu and other affected candidates were not parties to the suit and that the Supreme Court did not determine whether any of them appeared on the relevant party register within the period prescribed by law.
“There was no factual finding on their register status, primary conduct or defection timing,” he added.
According to him, INEC would have to apply the restored provisions to the circumstances of individual candidates, while disputed cases could ultimately be determined by the courts.
He said the issues could include whether a candidate’s name appeared on the relevant party membership register at least 21 days before the primary, whether the primary complied with the law and whether questions surrounding alleged double participation arose.
Azeez added that the question of whether the restored provisions could have retrospective effect would also depend on the facts of each case.
INEC keeps mum
Calls to the Chief Press Secretary to the INEC Chairman, Adedayo Oketola, did not connect.
The commission’s Director of Voter Education and Publicity, Mrs Victoria Eta-Messi, told DECENCY GLOBAL NEWS that she would get back with a response but had yet to do so as of press time.
