The Supreme Court’s latest decision on key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 may have opened a fresh chapter in the legal battles surrounding some candidates ahead of the 2027 general elections.

On Thursday, a seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act after setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had declared the provisions unconstitutional.

The court consequently restored the judgment of the Federal High Court, which had dismissed a suit filed by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) challenging the provisions, and awarded N2 million costs against the party.

The Supreme Court ruling did not disqualify any candidate.

However, its restoration of the disputed provisions means that the nomination of some candidates may now face closer scrutiny, particularly where questions arise over party membership, the timing of defections, membership registers submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), or the manner in which candidates emerged from their parties’ nomination processes.

Among those whose nominations may attract attention are All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in Rivers State, Kingsley Chinda; Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in Gombe State, Isa Pantami; former deputy Senate president, Ovie Omo-Agege; former Delta State House of Assembly Speaker, Victor Ochei; and former Cross River State governor, Donald Duke, the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) presidential candidate.

Their circumstances are different, but each case raises questions around party membership, nomination or the use of waivers — issues that have become more significant following the Supreme Court judgment.

What the Supreme Court restored
Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act provides that only members whose names are contained in a political party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention can participate in the exercise.

Section 77(6) requires parties to use the register submitted to the electoral commission for their primaries, congresses and conventions.

Section 77(7) provides that a party which fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period cannot field a candidate for the election.

Section 84(2), meanwhile, provides that political parties shall nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus.

The provisions had been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal in July, but the Supreme Court has now affirmed their validity.

The practical effect is that parties and candidates may have to answer questions about compliance with the provisions where a nomination is challenged.

Kingsley Chinda
In Rivers State, the nomination of APC governorship candidate Kingsley Chinda may attract attention.

Chinda, a member of the House of Representatives and an ally of FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, emerged as the APC candidate on May 21.

His movement from the PDP to the APC and the timing of his membership have generated questions, particularly concerning the party register submitted to INEC.

Chinda appeared before the APC screening committee shortly before the governorship primary, while his resignation as minority leader of the House of Representatives became public in June. Speaker Tajudeen Abbas said the resignation letter was dated April 23, 2026.

The key question is whether the relevant party membership and registration requirements were met at the time of the APC nomination process.

However, reports of a possible legal challenge should not be treated as a judicial finding against Chinda. The Supreme Court did not determine his membership status or the validity of his nomination.

Isa Pantami
The case of former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, is also noteworthy.

Pantami withdrew from the APC governorship primary in Gombe on May 19 before leaving the party for the PDP, where he subsequently emerged as the governorship candidate through a voice-affirmation process.

Two PDP aspirants, Hamisu Mailantarki and Usman Garry, challenged his emergence, arguing, among other things, that he had not participated in the earlier screening process.

Last week, the Federal High Court in Gombe nullified Pantami’s nomination and ordered the PDP to conduct a fresh primary.

The party has scheduled September 29 for the fresh exercise.

Pantami’s case therefore goes beyond the Supreme Court ruling itself, as there is already a separate court decision concerning his nomination. Questions about his membership status and the circumstances surrounding his movement into the PDP could form part of the wider legal conversation around the nomination.

Ovie Omo-Agege
Former deputy Senate president Ovie Omo-Agege is another candidate whose nomination has attracted attention following the ruling.

Omo-Agege contested the APC’s Delta Central senatorial primary in May but lost to Ede Dafinone.

He subsequently resigned from the APC on May 22 and joined the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).

The NDC later granted him a waiver to contest its Delta Central senatorial ticket, which he secured through a consensus arrangement.

The questions surrounding his nomination centre largely on the timing of his movement from the APC to the NDC and the circumstances under which the waiver and subsequent nomination were granted.

Omo-Agege has, however, said the Supreme Court judgment did not disqualify him from the 2027 race.

In a statement issued through his media aide, he said the court made no order against him and that his name was contained in the NDC membership register submitted to INEC before the relevant deadline.

Victor Ochei
Former Delta State House of Assembly Speaker Victor Ochei is in a somewhat similar situation.

Ochei left the APC after its nomination process and joined the NDC in May.

The NDC subsequently approved a waiver allowing him to participate in its Delta North senatorial nomination process, where he emerged as the candidate through a consensus arrangement.

His case raises questions about the relationship between party waivers and the statutory requirements contained in Sections 77 and 84.

Donald Duke
Former Cross River State governor Donald Duke is another candidate whose nomination may attract scrutiny under the restored provisions.

Duke joined the PRP shortly before the party’s May 25 presidential primary and subsequently emerged as its presidential candidate.

His emergence was later challenged by PRP aspirant Yakubu Kingsley at the Federal High Court.

Kingsley alleged that Duke was not a member of the party when the membership register was submitted to INEC on May 4, 21 days before the primary.

Judgment in the case has been reserved for November 2.

The Supreme Court ruling does not determine the outcome of that case. Rather, the restored provisions provide part of the statutory framework against which the membership and nomination questions may be considered.

What the ruling means for the candidates
For all five candidates, one distinction remains important: the Supreme Court did not rule on their individual nominations.

The apex court determined the constitutional validity of the disputed provisions. Whether a particular candidate complied with those provisions is a separate question that would have to be established from the facts of each case and, where challenged, determined through the appropriate legal process.

Lawyer and policy specialist Yusuf Manjo said the relevant questions include whether the candidate met the applicable requirements for party membership, participated in the relevant nomination process, emerged through a valid primary and satisfied the statutory requirements for nomination.

He also cautioned against treating every party waiver as capable of overriding a statutory requirement.

Where a waiver concerns an internal party rule, the party’s constitution and guidelines may determine whether it is permissible. But where the requirement is imposed directly by legislation, a party cannot necessarily override it simply by granting a waiver.

More candidates could come under scrutiny
The implications may not end with the five candidates already attracting public attention.

With most political parties having completed their primaries, questions could emerge in other states where politicians defected shortly before nomination exercises, joined new parties after membership registers had been submitted or secured tickets through waivers or consensus arrangements.

The restored provisions could also become relevant in disputes involving substitutions, fresh primaries and candidates who emerged from factional party arrangements.

But such cases will depend heavily on their individual facts.

As legal practitioners have pointed out, the Supreme Court’s judgment is not itself a blanket disqualification order. A candidate’s fate cannot be determined simply by establishing that the person changed parties or received a waiver. The timing, membership register, applicable party rules, nomination process and specific statutory requirements would all have to be examined.

A new legal chapter before 2027
With the Supreme Court ruling settling the constitutional validity of Sections 77 and 84, attention is now likely to move from whether the provisions are valid to whether individual parties and candidates complied with them.

That could make party membership registers an increasingly important document in the months leading to the 2027 elections.

For candidates whose nominations are questioned, the next stage may therefore be determined less by political arguments and more by dates, documents, party records and the circumstances in which their tickets were secured.

For now, however, the five candidates remain candidates unless and until a competent court makes a specific determination concerning their nominations.