ABUJA | September 28, 2026
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has announced that it will review the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court judgment restoring key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 before determining its implementation, as questions mount over the validity of some political parties’ completed nomination exercises.
INEC’s Deputy Director of Voter Education and Publicity, Wilfred Ifogah, disclosed this while responding to journalists’ questions on the implications of the judgment, according to Nigeria Info.
Ifogah said the Commission would first obtain the certified judgment and subsequently convene to examine its provisions before deciding on the appropriate course of action.
The development comes amid growing controversy over the status of candidates whose nomination processes may be affected by the ruling, with some insisting that the judgment does not invalidate their candidacies.
On Thursday, September 24, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld INEC’s appeal against the July 16 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had nullified provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political party membership registers and candidate nominations.
A seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), holding that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.
The provisions regulate the submission and use of political party membership registers, eligibility to participate in nomination exercises, and the procedures through which parties select candidates.
Under the restored provisions, political parties must submit their membership registers to INEC within the prescribed statutory period and conduct their nomination exercises in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the appellate court’s earlier ruling in favour of the Zenith Labour Party, which had challenged the constitutionality of the provisions.
UNCERTAINTY OVER COMPLETED PRIMARIES
The judgment has generated renewed debate over primaries already conducted by political parties, particularly where questions arise concerning membership registration, defections and compliance with nomination procedures.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutional validity of the disputed provisions did not specifically determine the eligibility of individual candidates or automatically invalidate completed nominations.
The implications for particular candidates would depend on the circumstances surrounding their nomination exercises and the applicable legal requirements.
Legal practitioners have also expressed differing views on the extent to which the restored provisions could affect nomination processes concluded before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment.
INEC’s decision to await the certified judgment is therefore significant, as the Commission must determine how the court’s pronouncements apply to its statutory responsibilities ahead of the 2027 general elections.
For now, the electoral umpire has not announced any decision invalidating nominations on the strength of the Supreme Court ruling.
Its forthcoming review is expected to provide further clarity on the administration of the restored provisions and their implications for political parties and candidates.
