2027: INEC declares stance on Supreme Court judgment
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared its stance on the Supreme Court judgment affirming the constitutionality of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, saying political parties will not be allowed to field candidates whose names were not contained in the membership registers submitted to the commission.
INEC also said parties affected by the ruling would not be permitted to substitute such candidates.
The commission’s National Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, Mohammed Haruna, disclosed this on Wednesday evening while speaking on Trust TV’s Daily Politics programme.
The Supreme Court, in its September 24, 2026 judgment, 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.
Explaining the implication of the judgment, Haruna said parties should not be allowed to benefit from violations of the law by replacing candidates whose names were not on their submitted membership registers.
“It’s like you committed an offence. And then, you come and benefit from it. You remember cases that we had of some in Zamfara, you remember Plateau? The same thing.
“The parties, because they did the wrong thing, they thought they could now steal through the candidates.
“And 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.
Haruna said the commission was expected to make a definite pronouncement on the full implications of the Supreme Court judgment by Tuesday next week.
He added that, depending on the outcome of the review, some political parties could be unable to field candidates for certain elective positions in the 2027 elections.
“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,” Haruna said.
He explained that INEC’s delay in taking a final position was due to the need to obtain legal advice after receiving the Certified True Copy of the judgment.
According to him, the commission also had to authenticate the document before acting on it, citing previous instances where forged court judgments were presented to the commission.
“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. We’ve seen instances where people have even gone, have the audacity to forge a Supreme Court judgment.
“So, 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.
