The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) says it will study the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 before determining how the decision will be implemented.
INEC’s Deputy Director of Voter Education and Publicity, Wilfred Osilama Ifogah, disclosed this while responding to questions from journalists on the implications of the judgment, amid growing concerns over the status of some political candidates ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The development follows the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on Thursday, September 24, 2026, which upheld INEC’s appeal against the July 16 judgment of the Court of Appeal that had nullified key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 dealing with political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
The apex court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, holding that the provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. The court also awarded ₦2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), which had challenged the provisions. ([The Guardian Nigeria][3])
INEC Awaits Certified Judgment
Ifogah said the electoral commission would not rush to draw conclusions from reports and interpretations surrounding the ruling.
According to him, INEC will first obtain the Certified True Copy of the judgment, after which the commission will convene to examine the court’s pronouncements and determine the appropriate steps for implementation.
The position comes as political parties and some candidates whose nomination processes have become the subject of public discussion continue to insist that the Supreme Court ruling does not automatically affect their candidacies.
The issue has generated considerable attention because the restored provisions impose specific statutory requirements on political parties regarding membership registers and the conduct of primaries.
What the Restored Provisions Mean
Under Section 77(5) only party members whose names appear in the membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention are eligible to participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6)*requires political parties to use the membership register submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses and conventions.
Meanwhile, Section 77(7) provides that a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period cannot field a candidate for an election.
Also, Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods through which political parties may nominate candidates for elective positions.
These provisions had been challenged by the Zenith Labour Party on the grounds that they amounted to unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs of political parties and conflicted with relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
The Federal High Court, Abuja, had earlier dismissed the challenge. The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed the appeal in part and voided the disputed provisions in its July 16 judgment, prompting INEC to approach the Supreme Court.
Candidates Seek Clarification
The Supreme Court’s ruling has since triggered questions over candidates whose membership, defection or nomination processes could potentially be examined against the restored provisions.
However, legal experts cited in reports on the ruling have stressed that the judgment itself did not specifically disqualify individual candidates.
One legal interpretation is that the Supreme Court determined the constitutional validity of the disputed sections but did not make factual findings concerning whether particular candidates were properly registered, whether their names appeared on the relevant party register, or whether individual primaries complied with the statutory requirements.
Several political parties have also said they are awaiting the Certified True Copy of the judgment before making definitive statements about its implications.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and Labour Party have maintained that their nomination and membership-registration processes complied with applicable electoral requirements, while indicating that the full judgment would provide greater clarity.
Implications for 2027 Elections
The ruling places renewed attention on the procedures political parties follow in compiling membership registers, submitting them to INEC and conducting primaries.
Particular scrutiny could arise in cases involving recent defections, substitutions and candidates who joined new political parties shortly before nomination exercises. However, whether any individual candidate is affected would depend on the specific facts of the nomination process and any legal challenge brought before a competent court.
For now, INEC’s position is that it must first obtain and examine the Supreme Court’s Certified True Copy before determining the practical steps required to give effect to the judgment.
The commission’s review is therefore expected to provide further clarification to political parties, aspirants and candidates as preparations intensify for the 2027 general elections
