The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has said it will determine the fate of candidates potentially affected by the recent Supreme Court judgment after obtaining and reviewing the certified true copy of the ruling.
The development has created uncertainty among political parties and candidates ahead of the commission’s planned publication of the final list of governorship and State Houses of Assembly candidates for the 2027 general elections.
INEC is expected to engage political parties and other stakeholders on Tuesday, October 6, as part of its preparations for the 2027 elections. The commission is also scheduled to hold a World Press Conference on the same day.
The electoral body, however, has yet to give a definite position on how the Supreme Court judgment will affect candidates whose party primaries or membership status could come under scrutiny following the restoration of certain provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The National Commissioner and Chairman of INEC’s Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, said the commission was waiting for the certified true copy of the judgment before taking a position.
Speaking on the matter, Haruna said INEC had applied for the document and expected to receive it before the commission’s stakeholder engagement.
“The commission is yet to receive the certified true copy of the Supreme Court judgement. Hopefully we will do so tomorrow, (Monday). Until we do so and deliberate on it we cannot make any pronouncement on the issue,” he said.
The Director of Voter Education and Publicity at INEC, Victoria Eta-Messi, also confirmed that the commission had formally requested the certified document.
“The Commission had applied for the CTC and an opinion will be offered on the import of the latest Judgment of the Supreme Court,” she said.
The position means political parties and candidates whose nominations could be affected by the judgment may have to wait for INEC’s formal interpretation before knowing what happens to their candidacies.
The Supreme Court judgment, delivered on September 24, reversed an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal which had struck down provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
A seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, upheld INEC’s appeal and restored the earlier decision of the Federal High Court.
The judgment affirmed Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The provisions have significant implications for political parties because they set out requirements for membership registers and candidate nomination processes.
Under the restored provisions, only members whose names are contained in a party’s membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period can participate in the party’s primaries, congresses or conventions.
The law also prevents political parties from using a different register during such exercises.
Another provision provides consequences for parties that fail to submit their membership registers within the required period.
Section 84(2), meanwhile, deals with the methods political parties can use to nominate candidates, including direct primaries or consensus.
The legal dispute began when the Zenith Labour Party challenged the provisions at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Federal High Court dismissed the case on May 5, 2026. ZLP subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.
On July 16, the Court of Appeal partly allowed the party’s appeal and voided the disputed provisions, leading INEC to approach the Supreme Court.
The apex court later reversed that decision and restored the position of the Federal High Court.
The judgment has now raised questions because several political parties conducted their primaries and other internal processes while the Court of Appeal judgment was still in force.
Some of the affected parties had therefore operated under the understanding that the disputed provisions were no longer applicable.
The Supreme Court’s decision has effectively restored the provisions and brought renewed attention to the membership registers submitted by political parties before their primaries.
One of the major issues now before INEC is whether candidates produced from exercises conducted during the period when the provisions had been nullified will be affected by the apex court’s decision.
The question is particularly important for candidates whose membership of a political party began close to the date of their party’s primary.
The controversy has already surfaced in different states.
In Rivers State, for instance, questions have been raised over the candidacy of APC governorship candidate Kingsley Chinda following the Supreme Court judgment.
Chinda was reported to have registered with the APC on April 27, 2026, before emerging as the party’s governorship candidate at its May 21 primary.
The Rivers APC has argued that he satisfied the 21-day requirement because the period between his registration and the primary was more than three weeks.
Similar questions have also emerged in other states involving candidates who changed political parties before securing tickets for the 2027 elections.
In Gombe State, the issue of membership register compliance has also featured in a recent court decision.
The Federal High Court in Gombe nullified an APC primary for the Balanga/Billiri Federal Constituency after finding that the party’s candidate was not listed on the membership register submitted to INEC within the required period.
These developments have increased pressure on INEC to clarify how it intends to apply the Supreme Court judgment to the ongoing electoral process.
The commission had earlier fixed October 10 for the publication of the final list of governorship and State Assembly candidates.
The final list is expected to reflect the candidates who remain valid after the completion of the nomination, withdrawal, substitution and other statutory processes.
The governorship and State Assembly elections are scheduled for February 6, 2027.
INEC had already published the particulars of nominated candidates earlier in the electoral timetable.
However, political parties were still allowed to withdraw or replace candidates before the relevant deadline.
The final publication is therefore expected to provide the official list of candidates recognised by the commission for the state-level elections.
