The Supreme Court’s restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has opened a new legal dimension to the 2027 elections, with the nomination processes that produced presidential and other candidates potentially coming under closer scrutiny.
The judgment did not cancel any existing ticket, order political parties to conduct fresh primaries or disqualify any candidate.
But by restoring Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act, the apex court has returned to the centre of the 2027 political contest a set of statutory requirements governing party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
That could give fresh ammunition to aspirants and party members who believe their parties breached the law in the course of selecting candidates.
Among the high-profile nominations that could attract attention are those of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar on the African Democratic Congress (ADC) platform and former Anambra State governor Peter Obi, who emerged as the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
But the legal implications are not confined to them. The same statutory framework applies to the nominations of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and candidates of other political parties.
The emerging question is no longer simply who won a party primary, but whether the process through which each candidate emerged complied with the law.
What the Supreme Court decided
In a unanimous decision by a seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) against the July 16 judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The appellate court had voided the disputed provisions after the Zenith Labour Party challenged their constitutionality.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and restoring the judgment of the Federal High Court which had dismissed the challenge.
The apex court also awarded N2 million costs against the Zenith Labour Party.
The decision effectively settles the immediate constitutional dispute over the provisions.
Section 77(5) provides that only party members whose names are contained in the membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention are eligible to vote.
Section 77(6) prevents a party from using another register for its primary, congress or convention.
Section 77(7) goes further by providing that a party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period shall not be eligible to field a candidate.
Section 84(2), meanwhile, prescribes direct primaries or consensus as the methods for nomination of candidates.
These provisions are now back in force following the Supreme Court judgment.
Atiku’s ADC ticket
Atiku’s emergence as the presidential candidate of the ADC was the product of a political realignment that attracted prominent figures from different opposition tendencies.
The Supreme Court judgment does not invalidate that nomination.
However, like every other party’s nomination process, the ADC process can now be examined against the statutory requirements restored by the apex court.
Questions could arise, for instance, over the membership register submitted to INEC, when it was submitted, whether the register used for the nomination process was the same register and whether those who participated were qualified under the applicable provisions.
There could also be questions about compliance with the party’s constitution, nomination guidelines and the prescribed procedure for conducting its presidential primary or arriving at a consensus.
None of these questions, by themselves, establishes that the ADC nomination was defective.
They become matters for determination only if an aggrieved person raises a competent challenge and provides evidence of non-compliance.
Obi’s NDC nomination
The same considerations apply to Obi’s NDC ticket.
His emergence on the NDC platform followed the movement of political actors seeking a new opposition arrangement ahead of 2027.
Again, the Supreme Court judgment does not pronounce on the validity of Obi’s nomination.
But the statutory requirements governing membership registers and nomination procedures now provide a framework against which the NDC process, like those of other parties, may be tested.
If a challenger alleges that the appropriate register was not submitted to INEC within the prescribed period, that another register was used, or that the nomination procedure did not comply with Section 84(2), the issue could become the subject of pre-election litigation.
The important point is that the Supreme Court has restored the rules; it has not declared that any particular party breached them.
And Tinubu, Makinde, others
The legal consequences cannot be viewed through the prism of opposition parties alone.
The provisions apply across the political field.
The nomination process that produces the APC presidential candidate, including President Tinubu, is subject to the same statutory framework.
So are the processes of the PDP, ADC, NDC, SDP, APM and other parties fielding candidates in 2027.
This universality is significant.
The Supreme Court judgment has not created a special vulnerability for Atiku or Obi. Rather, it has restored a common statutory standard against which party nomination processes can be examined.
For politicians, the immediate concern may be less about the identity of a candidate and more about the paperwork and procedure behind the nomination.
Membership register becomes a potential flashpoint
Of all the provisions restored by the Supreme Court, the membership-register requirements could prove particularly consequential.
Party membership lists are often politically sensitive, particularly where rival factions claim control of a party structure.
The law now makes the register submitted to INEC central to determining who can participate in a primary, congress or convention.
That raises practical questions for party secretariats. Was the register submitted on time? Was there evidence of submission? Was the same register used during the primary? Were the names of participating delegates or members contained in the relevant register? Were additions or alterations made after submission?
If a dispute arises, the answers may become evidence in court.
The provision could shift some of the post-primary battle away from political claims and towards documentary evidence.
Consensus candidates face another test
The restoration of Section 84(2) also puts the spotlight on consensus nominations.
Where a party chooses consensus, compliance with the statutory requirements and the party’s own rules becomes important.
The question could be whether the process genuinely amounted to consensus or whether an aspirant was effectively excluded from the process.
The Electoral Act’s framework requires the consent of cleared aspirants where consensus is used, making documentation potentially critical.
A party may have to produce not merely an announcement of consensus but evidence showing how the consensus was reached and that the statutory requirements were fulfilled.
The timing dilemma
Perhaps the most complicated issue is the timing of the judicial decisions.
The Federal High Court upheld the disputed provisions on May 5.
The Court of Appeal subsequently struck them down on July 16.
The Supreme Court restored them on September 24.
During that period, political parties were conducting nomination-related activities under an evolving legal environment.
This raises an important legal question: how will courts treat nomination processes conducted while the Court of Appeal judgment was operative?
The Supreme Court’s judgment, as reported, restored the statutory provisions but did not issue a blanket order cancelling all primaries conducted during the intervening period.
That means the consequences for individual nominations will depend on the facts, the timing of the relevant process, the applicable law and whether an aggrieved aspirant brings a competent action.
It would be premature, thus, to conclude that completed primaries have automatically become invalid.
A new litigation season?
The judgment could nevertheless encourage more legal challenges.
An aspirant who lost a primary may now examine the process for possible breaches of the restored provisions.
Instead of simply alleging that a primary was manipulated, the challenger could focus on documentary questions: the membership register, date of submission, accreditation records, notices, voting records, result sheets and evidence of compliance with party guidelines.
That could make party records as important as the political outcome itself.
For political parties, the implication is that, nomination files may need to withstand legal examination long after the primaries have been conducted.
Courts and the danger of judicialising politics
The development comes against the background of renewed concern among legal practitioners about the increasing role of courts in Nigeria’s electoral politics.
Speaking at the 22nd Annual All Nigeria Editors Conference in Enugu on Thursday, former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Afam Osigwe, SAN, warned against what he described as the growing judicialisation of the electoral process.
Osigwe argued that courts were increasingly being called upon to determine who should represent the people rather than merely resolve legal disputes arising from elections.
His intervention was not specifically a reaction to the Supreme Court’s Electoral Act judgment. But it provides a relevant backdrop to the new legal questions surrounding the 2027 elections.
The challenge for the judiciary may therefore be twofold: enforcing the law while ensuring that technical disputes do not unnecessarily substitute litigation for the political choices of party members and voters.
For the political parties, however, the message from the Supreme Court is straightforward: statutory compliance matters.
Parties face compliance audit
Party secretariats may now have to revisit their nomination records.
They will need to be able to demonstrate when membership registers were submitted to INEC, which register was used, who participated in the primaries and how the nomination was conducted.
For consensus nominations, evidence of consent and compliance with the relevant procedure could become equally important.
The issue is not whether every party will face litigation.
It is whether every party can defend its nomination process if challenged.
That distinction is important because the Supreme Court judgment does not automatically create a legal crisis for all candidates.
It creates a clearer statutory framework within which disputes can be tested.
From political victory to legal compliance
The 2027 battle may consequently acquire another layer.
The first contest remains political, persuading party members and, ultimately, voters.
The second may increasingly be procedural, ensuring that the route to the ballot is legally defensible.
For candidates such as Atiku and Obi, and for Tinubu and every other presidential candidate, the immediate question is not whether the Supreme Court has cancelled their nominations.
It has not. The more pertinent question is whether the processes that produced their respective tickets can withstand scrutiny under the provisions the apex court has now restored.
That could become the next major battleground in the 2027 election cycle.
The Supreme Court may have closed the chapter on whether the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act are constitutional.
But the political parties may just be entering another chapter: one in which membership registers, primary procedures and nomination documents could become as consequential as the votes cast on election day.