The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has clarified that the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Electoral Act 2026 does not automatically prevent individual candidates from contesting the 2027 general elections.
According to the commission, the judgment primarily concerns the eligibility of political parties to participate in elections and nominate candidates where they fail to meet statutory requirements relating to membership registers and candidate nomination.
INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, made the clarification on Tuesday in Abuja during the commission’s World Press Conference on preparations for the 2027 elections.
Amupitan said INEC had received the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment and was reviewing its implications for the electoral process.
The Supreme Court, on September 24, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after overturning an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had invalidated the provisions.
The affected sections establish requirements for political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates for elective offices.
Under Section 77(5), only individuals whose names appear on a political party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention can participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6) requires parties to rely on the membership register submitted to INEC when conducting their primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(7) states that a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the required period will not be eligible to present a candidate for an election.
However, the Supreme Court distinguished between the eligibility of a political party to nominate candidates and the individual qualification of a candidate.
The apex court held that Section 77 does not, by itself, disqualify an individual party member from contesting an election.
This means that where a political party fails to meet the statutory requirements, the consequence may apply to the party’s ability to field candidates rather than automatically disqualifying individual aspirants.
Amupitan said INEC had received enquiries and complaints from political parties, aspirants and members of the National Assembly regarding the implications of the judgment.
He explained that the commission would complete its review of the Certified True Copy before determining how the judgment would affect the 2027 electoral process.
The ruling has raised concerns among political parties and aspirants, particularly over the status of nominations and membership records.
The House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Matters has also called on INEC to audit candidates submitted by political parties and determine whether their names appear on the relevant membership registers filed with the commission.
However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that the eligibility of an individual candidate cannot automatically be determined solely on the basis of the judgment.
Instead, INEC and other relevant authorities would have to consider factors including the candidate’s nomination, the party’s membership register, when the register was submitted and how the relevant primary election was conducted.
Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 also provides for political parties to select candidates for elective positions through direct primaries or consensus.
With the Supreme Court having upheld the disputed provisions and INEC now reviewing the Certified True Copy of the judgment, political parties and aspirants are awaiting further guidance on how the ruling will be applied ahead of the 2027 general elections.
