Fresh legal battles may emerge over political party primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections following the Supreme Court’s restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
The development has raised questions about the possible implications for some candidates whose nomination processes have already been concluded, particularly those who defected from one political party to another before securing tickets.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The decision reversed an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had declared the disputed provisions unconstitutional.
The restored provisions require political parties to submit their membership registers to the Independent National Electoral Commission within the stipulated period and use the registers in conducting their primaries. Section 84(2) also provides for direct primaries or consensus in the nomination of candidates.
Although the Supreme Court judgment did not specifically invalidate nominations that had already been concluded, legal uncertainty remains over how the restored provisions should be applied to individual candidates and previously conducted primaries.
Some of the nomination processes that could attract legal scrutiny include those involving 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 obtaining the PDP senatorial ticket for Kwara Central.
Former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, is also facing a separate legal challenge. A Federal High Court sitting in Gombe recently nullified the PDP governorship primary that produced him and directed the party to conduct another primary.
Following the court order, the PDP scheduled a fresh governorship primary in Gombe State for September 29, 2026. The earlier exercise, held on May 26, produced Pantami through voice affirmation after his defection from the APC to the PDP. His emergence was challenged by another PDP aspirant, Usman Garry.
However, legal practitioners have offered differing perspectives on the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Salman Jawondo said the judgment did not automatically affect nominations that had already been completed. According to him, INEC would require a fresh court pronouncement before delisting any candidate, adding that a person challenging a nomination must have the necessary legal standing and comply with the applicable timeframe.
Another Senior Advocate, Bolaji Ayorinde, similarly argued that the judgment did not create a new basis for automatically disqualifying candidates. He maintained that constitutional qualifications remained central to eligibility for elective office.
Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikirun Branch, Osun State, Abdulkareem Azeez, said the Supreme Court had only affirmed the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the Electoral Act. He noted that the judgment did not make factual findings about individual candidates, including their membership-register status, the conduct of their primaries or the timing of their defections.
Azeez said such questions would have to be considered based on the circumstances of individual cases. Among the issues that could arise are whether a candidate’s name appeared on the relevant party membership register at least 21 days before the primary and whether the nomination exercise complied with applicable legal requirements.
The Independent National Electoral Commission has yet to publicly provide a detailed explanation of how it intends to implement the judgment in relation to candidates whose primaries have already been conducted.
The unfolding legal situation comes at a critical stage in preparations for the 2027 elections, when political parties are increasingly concluding nomination processes and positioning their candidates.
With different interpretations already emerging from legal practitioners and political actors, affected aspirants and parties may seek further judicial clarification where disputes arise.
The development therefore leaves the 2027 electoral calendar facing another potential wave of litigation, with the courts likely to determine how the restored provisions apply to specific nomination disputes and whether individual candidates complied with the requirements of the law.
