Electoral Act Battle: INEC Scrutinizes S'Court Ruling Amidst Top Politicians' Candidacy Push

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has stated its intention to review the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the recent Supreme Court judgment concerning disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 before making any decisions on its implementation.

This disclosure was made by Wilfred Ifogah, the Commission’s Deputy Director of Voter Education and Publicity, in response to inquiries regarding the implications of the judgment.

Ifogah emphasized that INEC would convene a meeting to review the CTC’s contents and determine its subsequent actions once received.

The Supreme Court, on a Thursday, had upheld INEC’s appeal, thereby reversing the July 16 judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The appellate court’s ruling had previously nullified provisions within the Electoral Act 2026 that pertained to political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.

A seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, reinstated the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which had earlier dismissed a challenge initiated by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

The dispute originated from a suit filed by the ZLP at the Federal High Court, contesting the legality of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The ZLP argued that these provisions conflicted withthe 1999 Constitutionand represented an undue intervention in the internal affairs of political parties.

Justice Mohammed Umar, presiding over the Federal High Court, dismissed the suit on May 5, 2026. This decision led the ZLP to file an appeal, which the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal partially allowed in its July 16 judgment, rendering the disputed provisions void.

Dissatisfied with this outcome, INEC appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking the revalidation of these provisions. After hearing arguments on September 16, the Supreme Court reserved and subsequently delivered its judgment on September 24, restoring the contentious sections.

These restored provisions include Sections 77(5), 77(6), and 77(7), which delineate requirements for political parties’ membership registers, as well as Section 84(2), which mandates direct primaries or consensus as permissible methods for nominating candidates.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, several candidates whose political aspirations might appear to be jeopardized have strongly maintained that the verdict does not affect their candidacies.

Among them is Mohammed Abubakar Adamu, a former Inspector-General of Police and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) governorship candidate in Nasarawa State.

Adamu, speaking through High Chief Otaru Douglas, the director of Digital Media and Strategic Communications for his campaign organization, dismissed what he called deliberate misinterpretations and premature celebrations by certain elements of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state, attributing them to ignorance.

Adamu, who contested the APC governorship primary before defecting to the SDP and securing its ticket, asserted that the Supreme Court's decision (in SC/CR/495/2026) merely restored and validated the constitutionality of the aforementioned sections of the Electoral Act 2026, after the Court of Appeal had deemed them unconstitutional.

Douglas clarified that the judgment serves as a general affirmation of INEC’s regulatory powers over party membership registers and is not specifically directed against the SDP or Adamu himself.

He further argued that no court has invalidated the SDP’s membership register, the direct primary/consensus process that led to Adamu’s nomination, or issued an order for INEC to delist him, especially since the Certified True Copy of the judgment has not yet been released.

Douglas affirmed that the SDP substantially complied with the Electoral Act 2022, as amended in 2026, by compiling and submitting its membership register to INEC and adhering strictly to Section 84(2) through an INEC-monitored direct primary. Consequently, Adamu’s candidacy is considered valid, lawful, and remains on the ballot.

Similarly, supporters of Professor Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami, former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate for the 2027 Gombe State election, insisted that the Supreme Court judgment does not impact his candidacy.

The Pantamiyya Movement, through its spokesperson Ibrahim M. Alfathir, stated its acceptance of the Federal High Court judgment and maintained that the ruling did not disqualify Pantami from participating in a fresh PDP primary.

The movement characterized claims of Pantami’s exclusion as misleading and urged members to remain calm pending the new primary, in which Pantami is expected to participate as directed by the court. Pantami's political journey involved withdrawing from the APC governorship primary due to alleged irregularities, resigning from the APC, and subsequently joining the PDP.

Although his initial PDP primary on May 26 was later nullified by the Federal High Court, the court did not bar him from a fresh contest or invalidate his PDP membership based on his prior APC affiliation.

The PDP has since rescheduled the Gombe governorship primary for Tuesday, September 29, 2026, and has cleared Pantami, Khamisu Ahmed Mailantarki, and Usman Aliyu Garry to participate.

The party also confirmed that the Supreme Court’s recent decision does not affect Pantami’s eligibility for this rescheduled primary. Barrister Attahir, Pantami’s lawyer, confirmed their readiness to participate in the fresh primary and rejected any claims of disqualification.

Hon. Kingsley Chinda, the APC governorship candidate in Rivers State, also declared that the Supreme Court did not issue any consequential orders pertaining to his candidacy. His close ally and APC chieftain, Chief Oby Ndukwe, conveyed this during a discussion with LEADERSHIP.

Ndukwe highlighted that there is currently no legal challenge to Chinda’s eligibility for the upcoming governorship election. She further recalled that the Supreme Court had previously affirmed that matters concerning party primaries are internal affairs of political parties, not subject to judicial intervention.

Ndukwe explained that the Supreme Court’s latest ruling against ZLP and in favor of INEC restored INEC’s powers based on the Electoral Act and the Constitution, specifically regarding candidate nomination and party membership.

She emphasized that while the law requires parties to submit registers to INEC, membership remains an exclusive preserve of political parties, allowing them flexibility in conducting primaries within constitutional provisions.

She concluded that only those who contested primaries with Chinda could legally challenge his candidacy, and until such a challenge is successful, his position is secure, reiterating that the Supreme Court judgment made no consequential orders affecting specific individuals.