2027 Elections: Chinda, Pantami, Others Await INEC Position as Commission Reviews Supreme Court Judgment
By Emmanuel Isong
The political and legal implications of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the Electoral Act 2026 are expected to receive further clarification on Tuesday, October 6, as the Independent National Electoral Commission reviews the decision and considers how its provisions should be applied ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Among the politicians whose nominations have attracted public attention following the judgment are Rivers State APC governorship candidate Kingsley Chinda, former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Ali Pantami, former Cross River State governor Donald Duke and former Delta State deputy governor Ovie Omo-Agege.
However, the Supreme Court did not issue an order automatically disqualifying the individuals whose names have featured in the political debate. The legal consequences of the judgment depend on the circumstances surrounding each party’s membership register, primary election and nomination process. The Supreme Court’s certified judgment has also been reported as distinguishing the consequence for a political party from the personal qualification of an individual candidate.
The controversy followed the September 24 judgment in which a seven-member Supreme Court panel allowed INEC’s appeal against an earlier Court of Appeal decision and restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The provisions deal principally with political party membership registers and the process through which candidates are nominated. Section 77(5) requires only persons whose names are contained in the membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period to participate in party primaries, congresses or conventions. Section 77(6) requires parties to use the submitted register, while Section 77(7) provides consequences for a party that fails to submit its register as required. Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods of nominating candidates.
The Supreme Court held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and set aside the earlier Court of Appeal judgment that had declared them unconstitutional. The apex court consequently restored the earlier Federal High Court decision and awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party.
The ruling has generated different interpretations because several politicians changed political parties or obtained nominations under circumstances that could now be examined against the restored provisions.
In Rivers State, the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners reportedly asked INEC to disqualify Chinda as the APC governorship candidate, arguing that issues arising from the Supreme Court decision affected his nomination. Another group, the Parliament Support Network, rejected the call and argued that the judgment did not specifically invalidate Chinda’s candidacy.
The situation involving Pantami is also being closely followed. The former minister emerged as the PDP governorship candidate in Gombe State after leaving the APC. A Federal High Court in Gombe had earlier nullified the process that produced him and ordered a fresh primary. Pantami subsequently participated in the rerun primary, which has itself generated another dispute over the application of the membership-register provisions.
Other politicians, including Duke and Omo-Agege, have also been mentioned in reports examining the possible effect of the Supreme Court ruling on nominations. However, their inclusion in public discussions should not be interpreted as confirmation that INEC or the Supreme Court has disqualified them. Reports have noted that the circumstances of the affected politicians differ and that any legal challenge would have to be considered against the applicable electoral provisions and facts of each case.
INEC itself has indicated that it would study the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment before determining how the decision should be implemented. The commission’s review is therefore expected to be important for political parties and candidates seeking clarity on the practical implications of the restored provisions.
A source familiar with the commission’s preparations told Fact Harbour News that the issues arising from the judgment are expected to feature prominently in the policy statements and clarifications to be made during INEC’s press briefing on Tuesday, October 6. The source indicated that stakeholders are particularly interested in how the commission intends to apply the restored provisions to nomination and membership-register questions ahead of the 2027 elections.
The information from the source does not, however, amount to a final INEC decision, and the commission’s official position will only be established when it makes its statements.
The Tuesday briefing is consequently being watched by political parties, candidates, lawyers and other stakeholders because it could provide administrative guidance on the next steps following the Supreme Court judgment.
The controversy is also likely to remain subject to judicial scrutiny. Candidates or political parties that disagree with INEC’s interpretation or implementation of the judgment may seek further legal remedies, depending on the circumstances of individual cases.
For now, there is no basis for treating the Supreme Court judgment as a blanket declaration that the politicians mentioned in connection with the controversy have lost their candidacies. The judgment restored specific provisions of the Electoral Act, while the application of those provisions to individual nomination processes will depend on the relevant facts, the law, INEC’s administrative position and, where necessary, subsequent court decisions.
All attention will therefore turn to INEC on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, when the commission is expected to provide further clarification on how it intends to apply the Supreme Court’s decision as preparations for the 2027 elections continue.
