Candidates and political parties preparing for the 2027 general elections are awaiting the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) position on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment restoring key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The Supreme Court on September 24 restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act after allowing an appeal by INEC against an earlier Court of Appeal judgment that had voided the provisions.
The restored provisions concern political party membership registers and the process of nominating candidates for elective positions.
INEC is expected to address the implications of the judgment at a press conference scheduled for Tuesday, October 6, in Abuja.
Sources within the commission said INEC management and its legal team have been reviewing the Supreme Court judgment ahead of the planned briefing.
INEC Reviews Membership Registers
One of the major issues arising from the judgment concerns the requirement that political parties submit their membership registers to INEC at least 21 days before party primaries, congresses or conventions.
Section 77(5) provides that only members whose names appear in the relevant register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period are eligible to vote or be voted for at party primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(6) further requires parties to use the register submitted to INEC for their primaries, while Section 77(7) provides that a party that fails to submit its register within the stipulated period cannot field a candidate for an election.
The commission is consequently reviewing the membership registers submitted by political parties as it considers the practical effect of the Supreme Court decision.
According to a source cited in reports, candidates whose names were not contained in the relevant registers 21 days before their parties’ primaries could face questions about their eligibility.
The development has generated enquiries from candidates, political parties and other interested parties seeking clarification from the commission.
Supreme Court Restored Disputed Electoral Act Provisions
The Supreme Court’s September judgment reversed the July 16 decision of the Court of Appeal, which had declared Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act unconstitutional and void.
The seven-member Supreme Court panel, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Adamu Jauro, held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.
The apex court consequently restored the earlier Federal High Court judgment that had dismissed the challenge to the provisions.
Section 84(2), meanwhile, deals with the procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties, providing for direct primaries or consensus.
The restoration of the provisions has raised questions about how the requirements should be applied to candidates whose party primaries had already taken place.
Recent legal analysis and media reports have noted that the Supreme Court judgment restored the provisions but did not, by itself, resolve every question concerning nominations and primaries that had already been concluded.
Gombe APC Primary Puts Membership Register Issue in Focus
The controversy has been brought into sharper focus by a recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Gombe.
The court nullified the May 16, 2026 APC primary for the Balanga/Billiri Federal Constituency and ordered the party to conduct a fresh primary within 30 days.
Justice Vera E. Ibrahim also barred Ali J.C. from participating in the fresh exercise after finding that his participation in the disputed primary did not comply with Section 77 of the Electoral Act.
The court found that Ali’s name had not been established as being on the APC membership register submitted to INEC within the required period.
Reports on the judgment said Ali joined the APC before the May 16 primary, but the court focused on compliance with the statutory requirement concerning the membership register rather than membership alone.
The Gombe judgment has therefore become an important reference point in discussions about how the restored provisions of Section 77 could affect candidates whose names were not included in registers submitted to INEC within the prescribed timeframe.
Questions Over Rivers Governorship Candidacy
The implications of the Supreme Court ruling have also generated debate over some political candidacies in Rivers State.
Supporters of APC governorship candidate Kingsley Chinda have argued that his candidacy is not affected by the membership-register provisions.
The Progressive Voices Network, through its president, Michael Olajide, said Chinda formally defected to the APC on April 23, 2026, and completed his registration on the party’s online membership portal on April 27.
The position has been challenged by an advocacy group that asked INEC to disqualify Chinda on the grounds that his name was allegedly not contained in the membership register submitted to the commission.
The competing positions have not been resolved by the statements of the parties involved, and the ultimate application of the Electoral Act provisions to individual candidates will depend on the relevant records and INEC’s position.
Rivers Court Adjourns Eligibility Suit
Separately, the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has adjourned until November 4, 2026, a suit challenging Chinda’s eligibility to contest.
The case was filed by Samuel Amatonjie against INEC, Chinda, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the House.
The plaintiff sought additional time to study and respond to processes served on him by some of the defendants on September 28.
The pending case adds another layer to the legal questions surrounding candidate eligibility and party nominations ahead of the 2027 elections.
Candidates Await INEC Clarification
With the Supreme Court having restored the disputed provisions, attention has now shifted to how INEC will interpret and administer them in relation to candidates and party primaries.
The commission’s review of party membership registers and its forthcoming public briefing are expected to provide greater clarity on the practical implications of the judgment.
Until INEC issues its formal position, questions surrounding individual candidates will continue to depend on the membership registers submitted by their respective parties, the dates of submission, the dates of their primaries and the specific circumstances of each nomination.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has restored the statutory framework governing the registers, while recent litigation, including the Gombe case, demonstrates the potential legal consequences of disputes over compliance with those requirements.