Supreme Court Verdict Sparks Fresh Legal Battles Over 2027 Election Nominations

PDP, SDP, APM, PRP and APC candidates face questions over membership registers and nomination procedures as parties defend their tickets

The Supreme Court’s restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has opened a fresh legal front over the nominations of candidates from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and other political parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The judgment, delivered unanimously on September 24, 2026, has renewed scrutiny of candidates whose eligibility could be challenged over their party membership records, the timing of their registration and compliance with statutory nomination procedures.

Among the parties whose candidates have been mentioned in connection with the legal questions are the PDP, Social Democratic Party (SDP), Allied Peoples Movement (APM), People’s Redemption Party (PRP) and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

However, the Supreme Court did not automatically disqualify any of the candidates. Its decision restored statutory provisions that may provide grounds for individual legal challenges if evidence establishes that a nomination failed to comply with the law.

The apex court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, setting aside an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had voided the provisions.

The restored provisions require political parties to rely on membership registers submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days before their primaries. They also prohibit parties from using a different register for the relevant processes and provide for direct primaries or consensus as methods of selecting candidates.

Consequently, candidates could face legal challenges if evidence shows that they were not listed in the relevant register, joined their party after the register was submitted, participated in another party’s primary or emerged through a process that failed to meet the applicable statutory requirements.

PDP candidates in the eye of the storm

Although the Supreme Court made no candidate-specific findings against PDP politicians, several nominations have attracted attention following the judgment.

They include Senator Saliu Mustapha, Kolo Jiya, Professor Iyabo Obasanjo and Senator Olubiyi Fadeyi, whose candidacies have prompted questions about membership records, waivers and the procedures through which they secured their party tickets.

Pantami’s case already before court

In Gombe State, the legal dispute involving former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Professor Isa Ali Pantami, predates the Supreme Court judgment.

A Federal High Court had nullified the PDP governorship primary that produced Pantami and ordered the party to conduct a fresh exercise in accordance with its constitution, guidelines and applicable electoral laws. The court also barred Pantami from continuing to present himself as the party’s candidate.

The PDP has scheduled Tuesday, September 29, for the fresh governorship primary, with Pantami, Khamisu Ahmed Mailantarki and Usman Aliyu Garry cleared to participate.

Pantami’s case is therefore distinct from the legal questions arising from the Supreme Court’s decision. His candidacy is already subject to a separate Federal High Court order.

His movement into the PDP after failing to secure the APC governorship ticket had featured in the dispute over the earlier primary, including questions about the process through which he emerged as the party’s candidate.

The fresh primary presents the party with another opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the applicable membership and nomination requirements.

Mustapha and Jiya face membership register questions

Questions have also been raised over the PDP senatorial candidacies of Senator Saliu Mustapha in Kwara Central and Kolo Jiya in Kwara North.

Both politicians were previously associated with the APC before moving into the PDP camp, backed by the Saraki-led G15 alliance, which is working with the FCT Minister Nyesom Wike-led Rainbow Coalition.

The central questions concern whether their names appeared on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period and whether waivers granted to them were sufficient to qualify them for participation in the party’s nomination process.

The Kwara PDP has rejected suggestions that the Supreme Court judgment automatically invalidated their candidacies.

The party said Mustapha did not participate in the earlier PDP senatorial primary and became the candidate following the withdrawal of the initial nominee.

It also maintained that the affected new members obtained the required waivers before participating in party activities, arguing that the waivers regularised their membership and made them eligible for the relevant processes.

Any legal challenge, however, would depend on the documentary record, including the PDP membership register submitted to INEC, its submission date, the terms of any waivers and the procedures through which the candidates emerged.

Iyabo Obasanjo’s return under scrutiny

The candidacy of Professor Iyabo Obasanjo in Ogun Central has also come under scrutiny following the judgment.

Obasanjo resigned from the APC on May 31, 2026, after losing the party’s governorship ticket, returned to the PDP on June 15 and was presented as its Ogun Central senatorial candidate two days later.

The timing of her return has prompted questions about whether her name was included in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before the relevant nomination exercise.

There is, however, no Supreme Court ruling directly disqualifying Obasanjo.

Her media aide, Dr Odun Agbalajobi, rejected suggestions that the judgment had invalidated her candidacy.

“Senator Iyabo Obasanjo was not a party to that case,” her media aide said, adding that the judgment did not issue any order disqualifying her from contesting the Ogun Central senatorial election.

A PDP chieftain in Ogun State, Adeoye Adewale Adeniran, also accused the APC of misrepresenting the judgment in relation to Obasanjo’s candidacy.

“The APC is twisting the Supreme Court judgment to stop Iyabo Obasanjo,” Adeniran said, accusing the opposition of using misinformation and political propaganda over her eligibility.

The comments represent political responses to the controversy and do not constitute a judicial determination of Obasanjo’s eligibility.

Fadeyi rejects disqualification claims

In Osun State, Senator Olubiyi Fadeyi has rejected reports that the Supreme Court judgment had ended his bid to return to the Senate.

Fadeyi said no court had issued an order disqualifying him and described reports to that effect as speculative.

“For clarity sake, there is no clear evidence on Fadeyi’s disqualification from any court sitting, hence, the report of his alleged disqualification remains speculative and unfounded,” he said.

He also defended the process through which he obtained the PDP ticket, insisting that the nomination had received the necessary approval from relevant party executives.

“The processes to bestow the PDP ticket on Senator Olubiyi Fadeyi for second term in office is clear, legal and approved by all relevant party executives,” he said.

Fadeyi further maintained that the PDP complied with the electoral law and its internal rules.

“The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP followed the provisions of electoral law and everything was done in accordance with the law and party’s laid down rules,” he said.

The Supreme Court made no specific finding concerning Fadeyi’s membership status or nomination.

Other parties face nomination questions

Beyond the PDP, candidates associated with the SDP, APM, PRP and APC have also been identified as potentially affected by the restored provisions.

The names and political positions cited in connection with the emerging disputes include:

• Adamu Idris: A former Inspector-General of Police reportedly associated with the SDP in Nasarawa State.
• Abdulrahman Haske: An APM candidate in Adamawa State.
• Senator Shehu Buba: A candidate reportedly associated with the PRP in Bauchi State.
• Lawal Daura: Identified in the allegations concerning an APM ticket and described as a running mate to Seyi Makinde.
• Farouk Mustapha: An APC deputy governorship candidate in Bauchi State.

These names have been raised in the context of possible questions about membership registration and nomination procedures. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment itself did not establish that any of these individuals had breached the restored provisions or were disqualified from contesting.

Any claim that a particular candidate is ineligible would need to be assessed against the relevant membership records, nomination documents and any applicable court orders.

Membership records at the centre of the disputes

The emerging disputes are expected to focus on the records behind individual nominations rather than on the Supreme Court judgment as an automatic disqualification order.

The critical documents include membership registers submitted to INEC, the dates on which they were submitted, any waivers granted to new members and records showing how candidates emerged through the relevant primary or consensus process.

Where those documents establish non-compliance with the restored statutory requirements, they could provide grounds for candidate-specific litigation.

For parties and candidates facing questions about their nominations, the timing of membership registration and the validity of internal party procedures may therefore become central issues in any ensuing court proceedings.

Until a defect is established through the appropriate legal process, the Supreme Court’s decision should not be interpreted as having automatically invalidated the affected nominations.