2027: INEC Reviews Supreme Court Judgment Affecting Chinda, Omo-Agege, Others

By Cherry Okems

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has commenced a review of the Supreme Court judgment that restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, a development that could have implications for the nominations of several prominent politicians ahead of the 2027 general elections.

INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, disclosed this on Tuesday in Abuja during the commission’s World Press Conference, saying the electoral body had only received the Certified True Copy of the judgment and was examining its provisions before deciding on the appropriate course of action.

The review has become necessary following complaints submitted to the commission by political parties, aggrieved aspirants and members of the National Assembly concerning the possible implications of the apex court’s decision for candidates who changed political parties during the ongoing electoral cycle.

Amupitan said the commission had been formally alerted to the Supreme Court’s September 24, 2026 judgment in the case involving INEC and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), which restored provisions of the Electoral Act dealing with party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.

“We have recently received complaints from some political parties, and aggrieved aspirants, and even from the National Assembly, drawing our attention to the recent Supreme Court decision of the Zenith Labour Party, delivered on the 24th day of September, 2026, affirming the constitutionality of Sections 77, subsections 5 to 7 of the Electoral Act, 2026, and also upholding our revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 General Election,” the INEC chairman said.

“We only received the certified copy of this judgment this morning, and it is being reviewed.” (Premium Times Nigeria)

The Supreme Court had, in a unanimous judgment delivered by a seven-member panel, allowed INEC’s appeal and restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.

The provisions had earlier been declared invalid by the Court of Appeal following a legal challenge by the ZLP. The appellate court had held that the provisions could not impose additional conditions on political parties and candidates beyond those contained in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, overturned that decision and reinstated the judgment of the Federal High Court, which had dismissed the ZLP’s suit. The apex court also awarded N2 million in costs against the party. (The Guardian Nigeria)

What The Supreme Court Ruling Means

At the centre of the controversy is the requirement that political parties submit their membership registers to INEC within the period prescribed by law before conducting primaries, congresses or conventions.

Under Section 77(5), only members whose names appear on the membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a party’s primary, congress or convention are eligible to participate in the exercise.

Section 77(6) prevents a political party from relying on a different register during the relevant exercise, while Section 77(7) provides consequences for a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period.

Section 84(2), meanwhile, deals with the nomination of candidates by political parties through direct primaries or consensus.

The Supreme Court’s restoration of the provisions has therefore raised questions about the validity of nominations involving politicians who moved from one political party to another after nomination processes had already commenced or been concluded.

However, the judgment itself did not name or disqualify any individual candidate. The immediate issue before INEC is how the restored provisions apply to particular nomination processes and whether any of the affected parties complied with the statutory requirements.

Chinda, Omo-Agege, Duke, Others Under Scrutiny

Among the politicians whose nominations have attracted attention following the judgment are the All Progressives Congress governorship candidate in Rivers State, Kingsley Chinda; Nigeria Democratic Congress senatorial candidate for Delta Central, Ovie Omo-Agege; former Cross River State governor and Peoples Redemption Party presidential candidate, Donald Duke; and former Speaker of the Delta State House of Assembly, Victor Ochei.

Other nominations have also generated questions in different states, with political parties and aspirants seeking clarification from INEC on how the Supreme Court ruling should be applied.

The situation has consequently introduced another layer of uncertainty into preparations for the 2027 elections, particularly for politicians whose movements between parties occurred relatively close to nomination exercises.

For Omo-Agege, the controversy has already generated a political response. The former Deputy Senate President, who is contesting the Delta Central senatorial seat on the platform of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, has argued that the Supreme Court did not make any order against him personally and did not declare him ineligible to contest.

Omo-Agege has maintained that his name was included in the NDC membership register submitted to INEC before the relevant deadline and that he also appeared on INEC’s published final list of candidates. He has therefore rejected suggestions that the Supreme Court judgment automatically terminated his 2027 senatorial ambition. (Legit.ng - Nigeria news.)

That distinction is significant because the Supreme Court was dealing with the validity of provisions of the Electoral Act rather than determining the eligibility of individual candidates.

INEC Yet To Announce Any Disqualification

Despite the growing political anxiety, INEC has not announced the disqualification of Chinda, Omo-Agege, Duke, Ochei or any other candidate as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court judgment.

Rather, the commission has said it is studying the certified judgment before determining what steps, if any, should be taken.

This means that the current controversy should not be interpreted as a declaration by INEC that the affected candidates have already been removed from the 2027 race.

The commission’s review is expected to examine the precise facts surrounding individual nominations, including party membership registers, the dates on which candidates joined their respective parties, when the registers were submitted to INEC, and the dates on which primaries or other nomination exercises were conducted.

The exercise could therefore produce different outcomes for different candidates depending on the circumstances of their nominations.

Political Defections at The Centre of Controversy

The issue also touches on one of the most persistent features of Nigerian electoral politics — the movement of politicians from one political party to another, often shortly before elections.

The 2027 election cycle has witnessed significant political realignments, with politicians crossing party lines and several opposition figures and political blocs restructuring their platforms ahead of the presidential, governorship and legislative contests.

The restored provisions of the Electoral Act could make the timing of such movements more consequential because party membership and the submission of membership registers have become central to the legal framework governing participation in primaries.

Political parties therefore face renewed pressure to ensure that their nomination processes comply strictly with the law, while aspirants and candidates are likely to scrutinise the records submitted by their rivals in an effort to establish whether the statutory requirements were followed.

The Supreme Court judgment has consequently shifted the argument from whether the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act are constitutional to how they should be applied to the 2027 electoral process.

Implications For 2027 Election Preparations

For INEC, the development comes at a critical stage in preparations for the 2027 general elections.

The commission has already published its revised timetable and schedule of activities, and the Supreme Court judgment upheld the legality of the revised timetable alongside the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act.

INEC must now balance the need to enforce the law with the constitutional rights of political parties and candidates, particularly because decisions affecting nominations are likely to attract litigation.

Any decision by the commission to reject or remove a candidate could potentially generate fresh legal challenges, while failure to enforce provisions of the Electoral Act could equally expose the electoral process to accusations of selective application of the law.

The commission’s present decision to review the certified judgment before taking further action therefore places considerable emphasis on legal precision.

With the 2027 elections approaching, political parties and candidates are expected to watch the outcome of the review closely.

For now, however, the position remains that INEC is examining the Supreme Court judgment and has yet to announce any disqualification arising from it. The eventual interpretation and implementation of the ruling could have important consequences for a number of high-profile contests, making the commission’s next decision one of the significant electoral developments to watch as preparations for the 2027 polls intensify.