INEC: Parties with Candidates Missing from Registers Risk Losing 2027 Tickets

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has warned political parties that candidates whose names were not contained in the membership registers submitted to the commission will not be allowed to contest the 2027 general elections.

The commission also said political parties affected by the rule would not be permitted to replace such candidates, stressing that parties should not be allowed to benefit from breaches of the law governing the nomination of candidates.

The warning follows the September 24, 2026 judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 and upheld INEC's revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.

INEC National Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, Mohammed Haruna, disclosed the commission's position while speaking on Trust TV's Daily Politics programme on Wednesday evening.

Haruna, however, indicated that INEC was still examining the full implications of the Supreme Court judgment and consulting its legal advisers before issuing a definitive operational directive.

He said the commission was expected to make a final pronouncement on the matter by Tuesday next week.

Supreme Court Judgment Sets New Legal Context

The Supreme Court judgment has assumed considerable importance because membership registers submitted by political parties to INEC are central to determining whether individuals who subsequently emerge as candidates were actually members of the parties at the time they participated in their nomination processes.

INEC's 2027 electoral timetable had provided for political parties to submit their membership registers within a specified period before the conduct of their primaries. The commission's published timetable set the submission window for party registers from April 22 to May 21, 2026, followed by the period for party primaries from May 22 to June 20, 2026.

The commission has subsequently maintained that the register requirement cannot be treated as a mere administrative formality, particularly where questions arise over the membership status of persons who emerged as candidates at party primaries.

The Supreme Court's September judgment, therefore, provides the legal backdrop against which INEC is now reviewing the status of affected candidates and parties.

The commission has also been reviewing its regulations and guidelines for political parties to bring them into conformity with the Electoral Act 2026, with particular attention to candidate nomination, party administration, membership documentation and the prevention of pre-election disputes.

No Reward for Violation, Says INEC

Explaining why affected parties may not be permitted to simply substitute another candidate, Haruna said doing so would effectively allow a party to benefit from its own failure to comply with the law.

According to him, where a party presented a candidate who was not on the membership register submitted to INEC, the party should not subsequently be permitted to replace that candidate and thereby escape the consequence of the original breach.

He likened the situation to an offender attempting to benefit from an offence committed.

“It’s like you committed an offence. And then, you come and benefit from it,” Haruna said, referring to previous disputes involving candidates and party registers.

He recalled cases associated with Zamfara and Plateau, saying the principle at issue was that parties should not be permitted to derive an electoral advantage from non-compliance with statutory requirements.

“The law was very clear. Once you do that kind of thing, you cannot benefit from it. You are benefiting from it, if you are able to substitute a candidate,” he said.

The position, if finally adopted by the commission, could have consequences beyond the individual candidates whose membership records are being questioned, because in some circumstances a party could find itself without a candidate for a particular elective position.

From Presidential Contest to State Assemblies

Haruna stressed that the issue was not limited to one category of election or to a particular level of political office.

He said INEC had scrutinised candidates from the highest level of the electoral hierarchy down to the state Houses of Assembly and would have to determine whether their names appeared on the relevant registers.

“All the candidates, all the way to the Houses of Assembly, we interviewed them. If their names are not on the party register, they were not members of the party at the time that they contested for those tickets,” he said.

This means that the potential implications could cut across presidential, senatorial, House of Representatives, governorship and state House of Assembly contests.

The issue is particularly significant because the 2027 elections are already moving into a critical preparatory phase, with INEC's official timetable setting February 20, 2027 for the presidential and National Assembly elections and March 6, 2027 for governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections.

Consequently, any decision that affects the validity of party nominations could have implications for ballot preparation, election logistics and the resolution of pre-election disputes.

INEC Seeks Legal Certainty Before Final Decision

The commission's delay in announcing a definitive position, Haruna explained, was partly because INEC wanted to obtain and authenticate the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment before acting on its provisions.

He said the commission had only recently obtained the document and needed to subject it to careful legal examination.

Haruna said INEC could not afford to act on documents presented to it without first establishing their authenticity, recalling that forged court judgments had previously been presented in electoral disputes.

“You can’t be too careful with these things because even when you see copies and they tell you it’s a CTC, it may be forged,” he said.

He added that there had been instances where individuals went as far as allegedly forging Supreme Court judgments, making it necessary for the commission to independently verify the document upon which it would base an electoral decision.

“We have to be very careful to make sure that when you took us, we did put a lot of pressure and we were able to get it yesterday (Tuesday),” he said.

The caution is significant because any decision by INEC to exclude a candidate or prevent a political party from fielding a candidate is likely to attract legal scrutiny, particularly in an election cycle already characterised by extensive pre-election litigation.

Parties Face Greater Compliance Pressure

The latest development places additional responsibility on political parties to ensure that their internal membership records accurately reflect their members and that the candidates they nominate satisfy all applicable statutory requirements.

It also underscores the importance of the internal processes through which parties admit members, maintain registers, conduct primaries and submit candidate information to INEC.

INEC has previously acknowledged that weaknesses in party administration, opaque primary processes and membership disputes have contributed to pre-election litigation and electoral uncertainty. The commission's current review of its party regulations is intended, among other things, to strengthen compliance and reduce such disputes before election day.

The commission's position also places a premium on the accuracy of documents submitted by political parties, because the membership register may become a decisive reference point when the eligibility of a candidate is challenged.

Potential Impact On 2027 Elections

If INEC ultimately implements the interpretation outlined by Haruna, political parties could face serious consequences where candidates are found not to have been listed on the registers submitted to the commission.

For affected candidates, the issue could mean losing the opportunity to appear on the ballot. For their parties, the consequences could be wider if INEC determines that replacement candidates cannot be introduced after the original nomination is invalidated.

The commission's position is also likely to intensify scrutiny of party nomination processes and could trigger additional legal challenges from candidates and political parties seeking to establish that their nominations complied with the Electoral Act.

At the same time, INEC's insistence that it is still reviewing the judgment means that the commission's comments should be understood as an indication of its current interpretation rather than a final comprehensive ruling on every possible case.

Haruna's commitment to a definite pronouncement by Tuesday next week is therefore being watched closely by political parties, candidates and other stakeholders preparing for the 2027 elections.

The issue has particular significance in a political environment where disputes over party membership, primaries, nomination procedures and candidate substitutions have frequently found their way into the courts.

The Supreme Court's ruling has now placed the membership register squarely at the centre of the nomination process, while INEC's emerging interpretation suggests that parties may no longer be able to treat discrepancies between their submitted registers and the identities of their eventual candidates as matters that can simply be corrected through substitution.

For the political parties, the immediate challenge is therefore to reconcile their nomination records with the registers already submitted to INEC and prepare for the commission's forthcoming clarification.

For INEC, the task is to translate the Supreme Court's judgment into clear, consistent and legally defensible administrative rules that can be applied across the various levels of the 2027 elections.

The outcome of that process could determine the fate of a number of prospective candidates and, in some constituencies, the ability of political parties themselves to present candidates on the ballot.

With the 2027 electoral calendar already advancing, the commission's promised pronouncement next week is consequently expected to provide greater clarity on how the Supreme Court judgment will affect candidate eligibility, substitutions and party participation in the forthcoming elections.