SUPREME COURT RULING SPARKS FRESH LEGAL CHALLENGES OVER 2027 NOMINATIONS
Read Time:4 Minute, 11 Second
By: Fasasi Hammad
The Supreme Court’s restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has opened a fresh legal front over the nominations of candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and other political parties ahead of the 2027 elections.
The parties potentially affected include the Social Democratic Party, SDP, Allied Peoples Movement, APM, People’s Redemption Party, PRP, and the All Progressives Congress, APC.
However, the September 24, 2026 judgment does not automatically disqualify any candidate. Rather, it restores statutory requirements that could form the basis of individual legal challenges if evidence shows that membership, registration or nomination procedures failed to comply with the law.
In its unanimous judgment, the apex court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, holding that the provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and setting aside the earlier Court of Appeal decision that had voided them.
The restored provisions require political parties to rely on the membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, within the prescribed period before a primary. They also provide for direct primaries or consensus in the nomination of candidates.
As a result, individual nominations could face challenges where evidence shows that a candidate was not on the relevant register, joined a party after the register was submitted, participated in another party’s primary or emerged through a process that failed to meet the applicable legal requirements.
Although the Supreme Court made no candidate-specific findings against PDP candidates, the nominations of Senator Saliu Mustapha, Kolo Jiya, Professor Iyabo Obasanjo and Senator Olubiyi Fadeyi have come under scrutiny following the judgment.
In Gombe State, the case involving former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Professor Isa Ali Pantami, predates the Supreme Court judgment.
A Federal High Court had nullified the PDP governorship primary that produced Pantami and ordered the party to conduct a fresh exercise in accordance with its constitution, guidelines and applicable electoral laws.
The PDP has scheduled a fresh governorship primary for September 29, with Pantami, Khamisu Ahmed Mailantarki and Usman Aliyu Garry cleared to participate.
Pantami’s case is therefore not solely a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment, as it is already subject to a separate Federal High Court order.
Questions have also been raised over the PDP senatorial candidacies of Senator Saliu Mustapha in Kwara Central and Kolo Jiya in Kwara North.
Both politicians were previously associated with the APC before moving to the PDP. The key issues concern whether their names appeared on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period and whether waivers granted to them were sufficient to qualify them for the party’s nomination process.
The Kwara PDP has rejected suggestions that the Supreme Court judgment automatically invalidated their candidacies, maintaining that the relevant waivers regularised their membership and made them eligible to participate in the party’s processes.
Any legal challenge would therefore depend on documentary evidence, including the PDP membership register submitted to INEC, the date of submission, the terms of any waivers and the process through which each candidate emerged.
The candidacy of Dr Iyabo Obasanjo in Ogun Central has also attracted questions following the Supreme Court judgment.
Obasanjo resigned from the APC on May 31, 2026, returned to the PDP on June 15 and was subsequently presented as the party’s Ogun Central senatorial candidate.
The timing has prompted questions about whether her name was included in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the period required by law.
There is, however, no Supreme Court judgment directly disqualifying Obasanjo. Her media aide, Dr Odun Agbalajobi, has rejected suggestions that the ruling invalidated her candidacy, saying she was not a party to the case and that no disqualification order was issued against her.
In Osun, Senator Olubiyi Fadeyi has also rejected reports that the Supreme Court judgment had ended his bid to return to the Senate.
Fadeyi said no court had issued an order disqualifying him and maintained that the process through which he secured the PDP ticket complied with electoral law and the party’s rules.
The Supreme Court did not make any specific finding on Fadeyi’s membership status or nomination.
The implications of the ruling extend beyond the PDP. Candidates linked to the SDP, APM, PRP and APC have also been identified as potentially facing questions over their nomination processes. Reports have specifically mentioned former Inspector-General of Police Mohammed Adamu of the SDP, Abdulrahman Haske of the APM, Senator Shehu Buba of the PRP and an APC deputy governorship candidate in Bauchi.
The Supreme Court’s ruling itself does not automatically disqualify these candidates. Legal questions will instead depend on the circumstances of each nomination, including membership records, defection timelines, waivers, primary procedures and compliance with the restored provisions of the Electoral Act.
The emerging disputes are therefore expected to focus on the documentary records behind individual nominations rather than treating the Supreme Court judgment as a blanket disqualification order.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0