Supreme Court ruling puts 2027 candidates, party primaries under fresh legal scrutiny

… Stirs afresh Rivers’ turbulent politics

The Supreme Court’s decision restoring key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has reopened a potentially consequential legal front for political parties and candidates preparing for the 2027 general election, particularly those whose nominations, membership status or party primaries could be challenged on grounds of non-compliance with the law.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, a seven-member panel of the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) against the Court of Appeal judgment that had voided Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act. The Supreme Court held that the provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution and restored the earlier judgment of the Federal High Court.

The ruling is significant because political parties have already conducted most of their primaries for the 2027 election. It means that requirements governing party membership registers and nomination procedures remain legally enforceable as parties move from the primary stage towards the general election.

At the centre of the judgment is the principle that parties cannot freely depart from the membership register submitted to INEC when conducting their primaries, congresses and conventions.

Section 77(5) provides that only members whose names are contained in the register submitted to INEC, at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention, can vote or be voted for. Section 77(6) requires parties to use that submitted register for the exercise, while Section 77(7) prescribes a serious consequence for failure to submit the register within the stipulated period: the party cannot field a candidate for that election.

The immediate implication is that disputes over who was legitimately a member of a party at the relevant time, which register was used for a primary and whether the statutory deadline was observed could now become central to pre-election litigation.

This could particularly affect politicians who changed parties after their original party registers or primaries had been submitted to INEC, although the legal effect will depend on the specific facts and timing of each case.

The concern is already being raised around candidates produced by political alliances and factions that emerged after the formal party processes.

In Kwara, for instance, the nomination of Saliu Mustapha and other candidates associated with the Bukola Saraki-backed G15 alliance could attract scrutiny if their circumstances involve questions about when they became members of the sponsoring party, when their names entered the relevant register and whether the party complied with the statutory requirements.

Similar questions could arise around candidates produced through the Nyesom Wike-backed Rainbow Coalition in Rivers State and other states where politicians moved across party lines or entered new political arrangements after established party processes.

A new battlefield for 2027 litigation

The ruling could therefore shift the focus of 2027 electoral litigation from the broad question of whether the provisions are constitutional to the more factual question of whether individual parties complied with them.

Already, Nigeria’s elections are characterised by extensive pre-election litigation, with disputes over party membership, primaries, delegates, nomination and substitution frequently reaching the courts.

The restored provisions could add another layer.

Candidates who believe they were unlawfully excluded from a primary could challenge the process. Rival aspirants could question whether the correct membership register was used. Parties could face suits over whether their registers were submitted within the statutory timeframe. And candidates who emerged from disputed or factional processes could face challenges from opponents relying on the restored provisions.

For INEC, the judgment strengthens its statutory role in receiving and maintaining party membership registers and overseeing compliance with electoral requirements. It also gives the commission a clearer statutory basis for applying the consequences prescribed by Section 77(7).

For political parties, however, the ruling is a reminder that internal party processes now carry consequences beyond the parties themselves.

The central question heading into 2027 may therefore no longer simply be who won a party primary, but whether the person was legally entitled to participate in it, whether the correct register was used, whether the nomination method complied with the law and whether the sponsoring party satisfied all statutory requirements.

Ruling stirs confusion in Rivers

Rivers State politics looks completely fractured, and every single political ruling of the Supreme Court causes more fracture and greater confusion in the state, whether the case emanated from the state or not.

The latest ruling is on the electoral timetable by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Rivers State is totally fractured again, with confusion ruling the air.

Many claim the ruling has thrown out Ogundu Kingsley Chinda (OK Chinda), the guber arrowhead of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who was believed to have been single-handedly installed from his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) high position of Minority Leader at the National Assembly to pick the APC form and muscle everybody else out, including the sitting governor, to pick the ticket.

Many have quoted parts of the judgment to agree or disagree with Chinda.

What the Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court judgment on INEC’s appeal delivered in September 2026 upheld the appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), setting aside lower rulings and affirming the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act governing party primaries and membership registers.

Appeal outcome

A seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro upheld INEC’s appeal, overturning previous interpretations that had challenged the commission’s regulatory authority.

· Statutory Validity: The apex court ruled that Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act do not conflict with the 1999 Constitution, validating the statutory requirements surrounding membership registers and candidate nomination methods.

· Dismissal of Opposition Suits: Separate appeals filed by the Youth Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC’s framework were dismissed by the court.

· Cost Award: The Supreme Court awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) in the primary appeal

The bottom line of the ruling is that INEC had the right to issue deadlines, and they remain valid. By this, parties that obeyed the timetable are protected.

Those who think Ok Chinda is okay with the SC ruling have called attention to the fact that INEC has since published a list of candidates including Chinda’s name. By this, it can only take a court case to remove his name.

A political commentator, Iwor Romgbo, said, “For anyone asking whether a published candidate can simply be disqualified, the answer is: not by mere allegations. Under the current electoral framework, a challenge to a candidate’s qualification or emergence through a party primary must be pursued through the appropriate legal process. It is primarily a matter for pre-election litigation by the appropriate aspirant, subject to the specific facts and grounds of the case.

“So, unless there is a competent court judgment affecting a candidate’s nomination or qualification, a name published by INEC remains on the ballot.

His current status, however, is subject to several ongoing court processes, as reports indicate that while his name has been published, ongoing legal and electoral discussions surrounding party registers and compliance with the Electoral Act have emerged regarding the candidate’s documentation status.

His detractors argue that the Supreme Court Judgment had implications for OK Chinda’s candidacy. One source said: “Based on the latest Supreme Court ruling, O.K. Chinda is looking at a disqualification because he supposedly registered as an APC member on April 23, 2026. Sources claim he joined the party a few days after the party had already submitted its membership register to INEC.

“By the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, O.K. Chinda risks losing his APC governorship ticket should the party’s leadership want to abide by the Supreme Court judgment and if truly he joined APC after the party had submitted its register to INEC.”

Another political commentator said anyone who wants to deceive themselves can go ahead and do so, but if Nigeria were a country of laws, O.K. Chinda’s candidacy of the APC has no legs to stand because it falls short of section 77 subsection 4 of the Electoral Act 2026 signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on 18 February 2026.

“The aforementioned section mandated all parties to submit their membership register not later than 21 days before the commencement of their primaries. It then means that if the APC that conducted its first primaries on Saturday, 16 May 2026, had waited for the last day to submit their register to INEC, they submitted it on April 25 2026, while OK Chinda registered two days later (see his membership slip below dated 27/4/2026). That is to say that OK Chinda’s name was not in the register submitted to INEC.

“Having realised the mistake he made with that candidacy in a bid to block Governor Fubara from getting the ticket, not with any competent person from RIPCO who were already registered members, but someone from his ethnicity, he ensured that he made two other governorship candidates from his ethnicity, governorship candidates of the PDP and the Labour, should the law catch up with OK Chinda post-election.

“With that, he came out to tell his supporters that he has not ‘anointed’ any of the candidates, evoking the confusion that has enveloped his supporters, many of whom have stopped posting “Rivers will be Ok”, unlike in 2022 when Wike did not make any mistakes and there was no need for pussyfooting, and many of us who believed in him started selling the candidacy of Sim Fubara after he emerged as the Rivers State PDP Governorship Candidate on Thursday, 25 May 2022. That’s it, and that’s all. No saccharine, no sugar, no spice.”

Alwell Ene, another political commentator, said only lawyers can say if Ok Chinda was ok or not because the Supreme Court-endorsed timetable means that Chinda did not meet up the submission date if they are to count from the start of all primaries, but would be ok if they are to start from guber primaries only.

Some others argued that Chinda’s matter may be beyond meeting the submission deadline for the APC register to INEC, but the issue is his proper resignation from the PDP before qualifying to pick up the nomination form from the APC. The source further pointed out that Chinda’s last salary as Minority Leader may be raised to confirm if he left properly because he is being accused of staying on as Minority Leader and also joining the APC within the same material time.

The problem may be that the case would need to be a pre-election case. Only those who contested with him in the primaries can qualify to raise it in court, but where would they get such persons to come to court?

Did the Supreme Court rule on APC factions?

Darlington Nwauju weighs in:

Darlington Nwauju, publicity secretary of the Emeka Beke faction of the APC, responding to inquiries, said the arguments on the ground should not be about Rivers APC executives. It’s about Kingsley Chinda and the rest. “And like I said, it will be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some registered before he did, others registered soon after, etc.

“The SC has reinforced the INEC rules, so all that is required to nail him would be to further prove that between 23 April and the day he participated in the APC primaries, he still had something to do with House Minority leadership.”

On OK Chinda, he said: “I don’t know how those who want the court to help them disqualify him can succeed because APC will help him clean up his records and INEC will readily acquiesce. So, I don’t see anything blocking him.”

Many immediately recalled how a Wike aide was exposed for accessing INEC’s backend. Now, they say, it is becoming clear what they went to clean up.

Did the Supreme Court rule on the APC exco matter as rumoured afresh over the two factions and the two court rulings nullifying the Wike-backed Tony Okocha faction?

Nwauju said: “I don’t know where they are getting their stories from. After the May 29th Appeal Court decision, which Okocha and his crew lost, they refused to appeal further. So, I don’t know which Supreme Court and who took the matter to the apex court. But such stories will trend because, of course, you know people want to get rid of Wike and his shenanigans.

Conclusion:

Confusion will continue to rule the political waves of Rivers State even if Fubara claims they have reconciled. Many have also claimed that Fubara is saying he would stay on till November 2026 because of his six-month suspension, which they dub unconstitutional. Fubara is in the UN and has not issued any statement on politics.

This shows how much rumours now rule Rivers State, and the level of confusion in the political life of the oil-rich state. These things affect investment confidence and set back the hand of economic development. (BusinessDay)