NEWS
INEC Awaits Supreme Court Certified Judgment as Fate of 2027 Candidates Including Rivers APC Guber Candidate, Kingsley Chinda, Hangs in Balance
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has disclosed that it will not take a definitive position on the fate of candidates who may be affected by the recent Supreme Court judgment until it obtains and reviews the certified true copy of the ruling.
The development has heightened uncertainty among political parties and candidates as the commission prepares to publish the final list of governorship and State Houses of Assembly candidates for the 2027 general elections.
The Supreme Court judgment, which restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates, has raised fresh questions over the validity of some party primaries conducted while an earlier Court of Appeal decision had suspended the disputed provisions.
INEC is scheduled to engage political parties and other stakeholders on Tuesday, October 6, as part of its preparations for the 2027 elections. The commission is also expected to hold a World Press Conference on the same day, with stakeholders watching closely for clarification on the implications of the apex court’s decision.
For now, however, the electoral body has maintained that it must first study the certified judgment before determining how the ruling will affect candidates whose party membership, primaries or nomination processes could come under scrutiny.
The National Commissioner and Chairman of INEC’s Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, said the commission was awaiting the certified true copy of the Supreme Court judgment before making any pronouncement.
Haruna disclosed that INEC had formally applied for the document and expected to receive it ahead of 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, separately confirmed that the commission had requested the certified document and would issue its position after examining the ruling.
“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 development means political parties and candidates whose nominations may be affected by the restored provisions will have to await INEC’s official interpretation before determining whether their candidacies remain secure.
At the centre of the controversy is a Supreme Court judgment delivered on September 24, which reversed an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal that 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 Supreme Court affirmed Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, provisions with far-reaching implications for the internal activities of political parties and the eligibility of candidates seeking elective offices.
Under the restored provisions, only party members whose names appear on the membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period are eligible to participate in party primaries, congresses or conventions.
The provisions also prohibit political parties from relying on a different membership register during such exercises, while failure to submit the required register within the stipulated period may attract legal consequences.
Section 84(2) further provides for the methods by which political parties may nominate candidates, including direct primaries and consensus arrangements.
The legal battle over the provisions began after the Zenith Labour Party challenged them before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Federal High Court dismissed the suit on May 5, 2026, prompting the party to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
On July 16, the Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal and voided the disputed provisions. The decision created a new legal environment for political parties preparing for their primaries and other internal electoral processes.
INEC subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which eventually reversed the Court of Appeal’s position and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court.
The timing of the Supreme Court ruling has now become a major issue because a number of political parties conducted their primaries and other internal processes during the period when the Court of Appeal judgment was in force.
Consequently, some parties and candidates proceeded on the understanding that the disputed provisions were no longer enforceable.
The apex court’s decision has effectively revived the provisions and placed renewed focus on the membership registers submitted by political parties to INEC ahead of their primaries.
One of the most critical questions confronting the electoral commission is whether candidates who emerged from party primaries conducted while the disputed provisions had been nullified could now be affected by the Supreme Court’s restoration of the law.
The issue is particularly sensitive in cases involving candidates who joined political parties shortly before their primaries, as the restored provisions could trigger questions over whether they were properly captured in the relevant membership registers within the required timeframe. The controversy has already begun to generate political and legal questions in different parts of the country.
In Rivers State, attention has been drawn to 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 maintained that he satisfied the 21-day requirement, arguing that more than three weeks elapsed between his registration and the conduct of the primary.
Similar questions have emerged in other states concerning politicians who defected or changed political parties shortly before securing tickets to contest the 2027 elections. The issue of compliance with party membership registers has also featured in a recent court decision in Gombe State.
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.
The emerging legal and political developments have consequently increased pressure on INEC to provide clear guidance on how the Supreme Court judgment will be applied to candidates already produced through the various party primaries.
The commission had earlier fixed October 10 for the publication of the final list of governorship and State Assembly candidates for the 2027 elections. That publication is expected to provide the definitive list of candidates recognised by INEC after the completion of the nomination, withdrawal, substitution and other statutory processes.
The commission had previously published the particulars of nominated candidates in line with its electoral timetable, while political parties retained the opportunity to withdraw or substitute candidates within the applicable deadlines.
With the governorship and State Assembly elections scheduled for February 6, 2027, the October 10 final list is expected to be a major milestone in the preparations for the state-level polls.
Until then, however, candidates and political parties facing questions over membership records, primaries or nominations will have to wait for INEC’s formal interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment.
The commission’s October 6 engagement with political parties and stakeholders is therefore expected to attract considerable attention, particularly as parties seek clarity on whether the restored provisions will have consequences for primaries already conducted and candidates already selected.
For INEC, the immediate task is to carefully examine the certified judgment, determine its legal implications for the electoral timetable and provide a position that will guide political parties and candidates ahead of the publication of the final list.
With the 2027 elections drawing closer, the commission’s interpretation could prove decisive for several candidates whose eligibility or nominations have become the subject of fresh scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s intervention.