By:ABUBAKAR ABDULKADIR USMAN, ESQ. Legal Practitioner/Academic/Researcher
INTRODUCTION
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Independent National Electoral Commission v. Zenith Labour Party, Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026, delivered on 24 September 2026, has introduced an important and potentially far-reaching dimension to the legal preparation for the 2027 general elections.Having carefully examined the Certified True Copy of the judgment now available, I consider it important that the decision should not be reduced to the simplistic proposition that “the Supreme Court has disqualified candidates who defected from one political party to another.”That is not what the Court decided.The real significance of the judgment lies in the restoration and validation of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, provisions dealing principally with political-party membership registers and the permissible methods by which political parties nominate candidates.
The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal judgment of 16 July 2026 which had declared those provisions unconstitutional and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on 5 May 2026.In my considered view, therefore, the judgment should be understood as a statutory-compliance judgment with potentially substantial consequences for party primaries and nominations, rather than as a judgment automatically cancelling the candidacies of particular politicians.
This distinction is fundamental.2. WHAT EXACTLY DID THE SUPREME COURT DECIDE?The operative portion of the Certified True Copy is particularly important.The Supreme Court ordered that:• the appeal by INEC succeeded on Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5;• the Court of Appeal judgment of 16 July 2026 was set aside;• Sections 77(5)–(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 were restored;• the relevant INEC revised timetable was restored; and• the Federal High Court judgment of 5 May 2026 was restored.
The Supreme Court therefore did not create new electoral legislation. Rather, it restored the statutory provisions which had temporarily been invalidated by the Court of Appeal.
That distinction matters because political parties and candidates who may have conducted their nomination processes during the period of uncertainty cannot simply assume that the statutory requirements have disappeared.
The Supreme Court has now authoritatively restored them.3. SECTION 77 IS NOW A SERIOUS COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTSection 77 is perhaps the provision with the greatest practical implications for political parties.
The statutory scheme requires political parties to maintain and submit their membership registers in accordance with the prescribed requirements.
The restored subsections make the timing and integrity of that register particularly important.In practical terms, the question in future litigation will increasingly become:“Was the person who participated in the party’s nomination process actually contained in the membership register submitted to INEC within the statutory period?”This is different from simply asking:“Was the person a member of the party?”A person may possess a party membership card and may even have been accepted by the party leadership, but that alone may not answer the statutory question.
The actual register submitted to INEC may become the decisive documentary evidence.4. SECTION 77(7): THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PARTY AND THE INDIVIDUALThis, in my view, is the most misunderstood aspect of the Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the consequence contemplated by Section 77(7) is principally directed at the political party’s eligibility to field candidates, rather than automatically converting the statutory default into the personal constitutional disqualification of every affected individual
.This means that the following propositions must be distinguished:Party default ≠ automatic personal disqualification.And:A defective nomination ≠ necessarily a constitutional disqualification
.The legal consequences must be determined in the context of the particular nomination, the party’s compliance, the applicable remedy and the court’s jurisdiction.5. SECTION 84(2): THE RETURN OF DIRECT PRIMARY OR CONSENSUSThe Supreme Court also restored Section 84(2).The significance is considerable
.The statutory framework now recognises:(a) Direct primary; or(b) Consensus.The previous reliance upon an indirect/delegate primary cannot simply be justified by reference to a party’s internal constitution where the statutory provision has validly prescribed another regime.
The Supreme Court’s decision therefore strengthens the statutory requirement that political parties conduct their nomination processes consistently with the Electoral Act.This will become particularly important where a party describes an exercise as a “consensus” but one or more aspirants contend that the process was actually used to exclude them from a contest.
6. THE EFFECT ON POLITICAL DEFECTORSThe decision has enormous practical significance for politicians who move from one political party to another shortly before nomination.But, again, defection itself is not the disqualification created by the judgment.
The important questions are:1. When did the candidate join the new party?2. When did the party submit its register to INEC?3. Was the candidate’s name on that register?4. What date was fixed for the primary?5. Was the statutory notice period satisfied?6. Was the same register used at the nomination?7. Was the process a direct primary or genuine consensus?8. Was a waiver granted?9. What exactly did the waiver waive?10. Was the nomination subsequently substituted or replaced?These questions are likely to dominate a substantial portion of pre-election litigation ahead of 2027.7.
THE PANTAMI/GOMBE SITUATIONThis is where the judgment becomes particularly relevant to the Gombe political and legal situatio
.The Federal High Court in Gombe subsequently nullified the earlier PDP process that produced Prof. Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami and ordered a fresh governorship primary.
The reported decision treated the defect principally as a problem concerning the nomination process rather than simply declaring Pantami personally constitutionally disqualified.
That distinction is strikingly consistent with the conceptual distinction emerging from the Supreme Court judgment.The situation then developed further with the reported fresh PDP direct primary of 29 September 2026.This development is legally important.The first nomination and the fresh nomination are not necessarily the same legal transaction.The validity of the fresh primary must be examined independently under the restored Electoral Act provisions and any applicable court orders.8.
WHY THE SECOND PANTAMI PRIMARY IS LEGALLY DIFFERENT
The first PDP exercise was reportedly conducted by voice affirmation.The fresh exercise was reported as a direct primary conducted across the 11 local government areas of Gombe State.
That distinction potentially changes the legal analysis.The first process raises questions concerning the validity of the nomination procedure, compliance with the PDP constitution, participation of screened aspirants, consensus/affirmation and the applicable statutory framework.
The second process raises a different set of questions:• Was the correct PDP membership register used?• Was the register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period?• Were all eligible members permitted to participate?• Was the direct primary properly conducted?• Was INEC duly notified and did it monitor the exercise?• Did the fresh primary comply with the Federal High Court order?• Are there pending applications or appeals affecting the exercise?Therefore, it would be legally unsafe to simply transfer every defect alleged against the first primary to the second
.9. THE SAME ANALYSIS APPLIES NATIONWIDEThe implications extend beyond Gombe.Current reporting has identified several nomination controversies involving politicians who changed parties or entered new parties close to their nomination exercises, including Donald Duke, Kingsley Chinda, Mohammed Adamu, Ovie Omo-Agege and Victor Ochei
.These are matters requiring candidate-specific factual and documentary examination; the Supreme Court judgment itself did not declare these individuals disqualified.
10. DONALD DUKE — PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONThe reported challenge to Donald Duke’s PRP presidential nomination illustrates the significance of the membership-register issue.The key question is not simply:“When did Duke join the PRP?”
The more important question is:“Was his name included in the PRP register submitted to INEC within the legally applicable period preceding the presidential primary?”That is fundamentally a documentary question.
11. THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO GOVERNORSHIP CANDIDATES
Governorship candidates who moved parties shortly before primaries are potentially exposed to similar challenges.For example, where a candidate loses or withdraws from Party A’s primary, joins Party B, receives a waiver, participates in Party B’s nomination and emerges as candidate, the court may need to examine the entire sequence.It would be insufficient to look only at the final day on which the candidate emerged.
The court may have to reconstruct the chronology:membership register nomination notice primary result substitution INEC submission.This chronological approach is likely to become one of the most important methods of analysing 2027 nomination disputes.
12. PARTY WAIVERS CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPLETE ANSWER
A party may issue a waiver to a new member.But the legal question remains:“What can a party constitutionally and statutorily waive?”A political party cannot necessarily convert a statutory requirement into a purely internal party matter by issuing a waiver.Consequently, where a candidate’s name was absent from the statutory register, the mere production of a party waiver may not end the inquiry.
The court would have to examine the interaction between the Electoral Act, the Constitution, the party constitution, party guidelines, the membership register, the waiver and the nomination process.
13. WHAT POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULD NOW DO
In my considered view, every political party preparing for the 2027 elections should immediately conduct a candidate-by-candidate statutory compliance audit.For every candidate, the party should maintain:1. original membership application;2. membership card/number;3. date of admission;4. copy of the membership register submitted to INEC;5. INEC acknowledgment of receipt;6. evidence of any permitted update;7. primary notice;8. screening documents;9. waiver, where applicable;10. consensus agreement, where applicable;11. primary result; 12. electoral/monitoring report; 13. substitution documents; and14. final candidate-submission documents to INEC.The absence of these documents may create avoidable litigation.
14. WHAT CANDIDATES SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT
For individual candidates, I would reduce the legal analysis to five fundamental questions:First: Was I legally a member of the party?Second: Was my name on the relevant membership register submitted to INEC?Third: Was the register submitted within the statutory period?Fourth: Was I nominated through a procedure recognised by Section 84(2)? Fifth: Can the party demonstrate documentary compliance with all of the above?If the answer to these questions is affirmative, the candidate is in a materially different position from someone whose nomination rests upon an undocumented or procedurally defective process.
15. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A “DISQUALIFICATION LIST”
One of the dangers following the judgment is the tendency to create a list of politicians supposedly “disqualified” by the Supreme Court.That would be legally misleading.
The Supreme Court did not sit to determine the individual nominations of Pantami, Duke, Chinda, Adamu, Omo-Agege, Ochei or any other candidate.
Those disputes must be determined by applying the law to their individual facts and the appropriate judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court established the legal framework. The individual courts must determine the consequences of compliance or non-compliance in individual cases.
16. MY PARTICULAR VIEW OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE
Having considered the Certified True Copy now available, I would summarise the legal effect in this manner:“The Supreme Court has not opened the door to the automatic disqualification of every candidate who recently changed political parties. Rather, it has closed the door against political parties treating statutory membership-register requirements and nomination procedures as optional internal matters.”This is the central lesson I draw from the decision.
The political party remains the vehicle through which a candidate ordinarily reaches the general election. Consequently, the legality of the vehicle’s nomination process can become just as important as the candidate’s personal constitutional qualification
17. THE PRACTICAL TEST FOR 2027 Going forward, every controversial candidate can be examined through the following matrix:Membership When did the candidate become a member?Register Was the candidate’s name on the register submitted to INEC?
Timing Was the register submitted within the statutory period?Primary Was the nomination conducted lawfully?Method Direct primary or genuine consensus?Waiver Was there a waiver and what did it cover?
Defection When did the candidate leave the former party?Substitution Was there a lawful. substitution/ replacement?INEC Was INEC properly notified and did it monitor the process?Remedy What remedy does the Electoral Act permit in the particular case?
This, in my view, is the more useful legal framework for analysing the 2027 elections.
18. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court decision in Independent National Electoral Commission v. Zenith Labour Party, SC/CV/495/2026, is one of the important electoral decisions preceding the 2027 general elections.Its significance lies not simply in restoring four provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, but in reaffirming the principle that political parties operate within a statutory electoral framework and cannot rely exclusively on their internal constitutions or political arrangements where those arrangements conflict with valid legislation.At the same time, the decision must not be overstated.It does not establish that every person who defected from one party to another is disqualified.It does not establish that every candidate whose name was allegedly absent from a register is automatically personally disqualified.It does not determine the validity of the individual nominations of Pantami, Duke, Chinda, Adamu, Omo-Agege, Ochei or any other candidate.What it establishes is the legal framework within which those questions must now be answered.In practical terms, the decisive evidence in many 2027 pre-election cases may ultimately be found not in political speeches, press statements or party assurances, but in the membership register submitted to INEC, the date of submission, the register actually used, the method of nomination and the documentary record of the primary itself.For that reason, I would regard the judgment as a wake-up call to all political parties, aspirants and candidates to subject their nomination processes to rigorous statutory audit before the 2027 general elections.In relation to Gombe State specifically, the development concerning the fresh PDP primary means that the legal conversation must now move beyond the validity of the first Pantami nomination and examine the fresh primary independently, including its compliance with Section 77, Section 84(2), the relevant court order and the PDP’s governing instruments.
Abubakar Abdulkadir Usman, Esq. Legal Practitioner | Academic/ Researcher 2 October 2026
