Electoral Act Ruling Raises Questions over PDP, Opposition Candidates

The Supreme Court’s restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has triggered fresh legal questions over the nominations of several candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and other political parties ahead of the 2027 elections.

The judgment, delivered unanimously on September 24, 2026, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act after the apex court overturned an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had voided the provisions.

The restored sections require political parties to rely on the membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, at least 21 days before a primary election. The provisions also set requirements concerning the conduct of party primaries, including direct primaries or consensus arrangements.

The ruling does not automatically disqualify candidates who may be affected by the provisions. However, it has raised questions about nominations where candidates were allegedly not included in the relevant membership register, joined a party after the register was submitted, participated in another party’s primary or emerged through a process that may not have complied with electoral requirements.

Among those whose candidacies have attracted questions are PDP candidates Senator Saliu Mustapha, Kolo Jiya, Professor Iyabo Obasanjo and Senator Olubiyi Fadeyi. The Supreme Court, however, did not make candidate-specific findings against them in the judgment.

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

A Federal High Court had earlier nullified the PDP governorship primary that produced Pantami and ordered the party to conduct a fresh primary in line 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 a fresh governorship primary for September 29, with Pantami, Khamisu Ahmed Mailantarki and Usman Aliyu Garry cleared to participate.

Pantami’s case therefore does not arise solely from the Supreme Court judgment. It is already subject to the earlier Federal High Court order, which followed disputes surrounding the process through which he emerged as the PDP candidate after failing to secure the APC governorship ticket.

The fresh primary is expected to provide the PDP with an opportunity to conduct the nomination process under the applicable membership and electoral requirements.

Questions have also emerged around the PDP senatorial candidacies of Mustapha in Kwara Central and Jiya in Kwara North.

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

The concerns centre on whether their names appeared on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the required period and whether waivers granted to them were sufficient for their 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 but became the candidate following the withdrawal of the initial nominee.

The party also maintained that the new members concerned obtained the necessary waivers before participating in its activities, arguing that the waivers regularised their membership and allowed them to take part in the relevant processes.

Any legal challenge to the nominations would ultimately depend on documentary evidence, including the PDP membership register submitted to INEC, the date it was submitted, the terms of any waivers and the process through which each candidate emerged.

The return of Iyabo Obasanjo to the PDP has similarly generated questions over her candidacy for the Ogun Central senatorial seat.

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

The timing has led to questions about whether her name appeared on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before the relevant nomination exercise.

However, there is no Supreme Court order directly disqualifying Obasanjo from contesting the election.

Her media aide, Dr Odun Agbalajobi, rejected claims that the judgment had invalidated her candidacy, noting that Obasanjo was not a party to the case decided by the Supreme Court.

A PDP chieftain in Ogun, Adeoye Adewale Adeniran, also accused the APC of misrepresenting the judgment in relation to Obasanjo’s candidacy. His comments represent a political claim rather than a judicial determination of her eligibility.

In Osun State, Senator Olubiyi Fadeyi has also dismissed reports that the Supreme Court judgment had ended his bid to retain his Senate seat.

Fadeyi said no court had issued an order disqualifying him and maintained that the process through which he secured the PDP ticket complied with the law and the party’s internal rules.

The Supreme Court judgment did not make a specific finding on Fadeyi’s membership status or nomination.

Beyond the PDP, questions have also been raised about candidates from parties including the Social Democratic Party, SDP, Allied Peoples Movement, APM, and People’s Redemption Party, PRP, as well as an APC candidate.

The cases involve different circumstances, meaning the Supreme Court ruling does not by itself establish that all the affected candidates are disqualified.

The key issues in any resulting litigation are expected to include the membership registers submitted to INEC, the dates of submission, the status of waivers granted to new members and the procedures used by political parties to select their candidates.

Where evidence establishes that a nomination did not comply with the applicable provisions of the Electoral Act, the affected candidacy could become subject to legal challenge. Until such issues are determined in individual cases, the Supreme Court judgment remains a restoration of statutory requirements rather than a blanket disqualification of opposition candidates.