ABUJA — The political future of several 2027 candidates could face a fresh round of legal scrutiny after the Supreme Court restored controversial provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing party membership registers and the conduct of primaries.
Among the politicians whose nomination histories could attract attention are Nigeria Democratic Congress presidential candidate Peter Obi, Social Democratic Party Kogi East senatorial candidate Idris Hussein Kashim, popularly known as Idris HK, and David Idris Zacharia, who moved from the All Progressives Congress to the Peoples Democratic Party after losing his party’s House of Representatives primary in Kogi State.
None of the three has been disqualified by the Supreme Court.
But the apex court’s decision has restored provisions that could give rival aspirants fresh grounds to examine whether candidates were properly listed on their parties’ membership registers when they participated in primaries.
And for politicians whose party membership changed shortly before a primary, the dates could now become crucial.
Why the Supreme Court ruling has suddenly become important
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on September 24, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after overturning the Court of Appeal’s July 16 decision that had declared the provisions unconstitutional.
The seven-member panel was led by Justice Adamu Jauro.
The restored provisions place statutory emphasis on party membership registers and their use during primaries, congresses and conventions.
This is significant because the Supreme Court’s intervention comes as political parties are already finalising their candidate structures for 2027. The Bureau Journal has reported on the emergence of APC senatorial candidates across Nigeria, illustrating how far the nomination process has already progressed.
The development now raises a difficult question: what happens where a candidate joined a party shortly before its primary, or participated in one party’s primary before moving to another party and securing a second ticket?
The immediate legal question is no longer simply whether a politician won a primary.
It is whether the politician was legally entitled to participate in that primary under the membership-register regime restored by the Supreme Court.
Peter Obi: NDC membership timeline faces fresh questions
Peter Obi’s case could attract particular attention because of the speed of his movement into the NDC and his subsequent emergence as the party’s 2027 presidential candidate.
Obi joined the NDC shortly before the party’s presidential nomination exercise and subsequently emerged as its presidential candidate.
The development is significant against the background of the legal uncertainty that has already surrounded the NDC itself. The Bureau Journal recently reported how the Court of Appeal overturned a judgment that had threatened the NDC’s registration and cleared the way for the party to continue preparing for the 2027 elections.
Now, a different legal question could emerge over the party’s membership register.
If an opposing aspirant challenges Obi’s nomination, one issue could be whether his name was contained in the NDC membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission within the statutory period applicable to the primary.
That is different from saying that the Electoral Act requires every aspirant to spend three months as a party member before contesting a primary.
The critical statutory question is whether the candidate was properly captured in the relevant membership register and whether the party complied with the requirements governing the register used for its primary.
Obi’s membership date, the date on which the NDC submitted its register to INEC and the date of the presidential primary could therefore become important pieces of evidence if litigation arises.
For a presidential candidate who joined a new political platform only weeks before emerging as its flag bearer, the paperwork could become just as important as the political result.
Idris HK: Kogi East ticket faces similar scrutiny
Idris HK’s emergence as the SDP’s Kogi East senatorial candidate could also attract attention if an aggrieved aspirant decides to challenge the nomination process.
The Kogi East contest is already one of the closely watched political battles in the state, where the 2027 senatorial race is taking shape alongside wider party realignments.
The key question following the Supreme Court judgment is whether Idris HK was properly captured in the SDP membership register used for the primary and whether the party complied with the statutory requirements surrounding the submission and use of that register.
If an opposing aspirant alleges that Idris joined the SDP too close to the primary, the relevant evidence could include his membership registration date, the date the party submitted its register to INEC, the date of the primary and the register used during the exercise.
Again, the Supreme Court judgment does not itself disqualify Idris HK.
It potentially creates a legal framework within which his nomination could be examined if a person with the required legal standing brings a challenge.
David Zacharia’s case could be more complicated
The situation involving David Idris Zacharia could generate even more questions because his political journey involves participation in one party’s primary followed by a move to another party.
Zacharia participated in the APC House of Representatives primary for the Idah Federal Constituency but lost the contest to Victor Uchola.
He subsequently moved to the PDP and later secured the PDP ticket to contest the House of Representatives seat.
That sequence could become significant under the restored membership-register provisions.
A potential challenger could seek to establish exactly when Zacharia left the APC, when he joined the PDP, when his name was entered into the PDP membership register and when that register was submitted to INEC.
The timing of the PDP primary would then become critical.
The central question would not simply be whether Zacharia had defeated other aspirants at the PDP primary.
It could be whether he was a properly registered PDP member and eligible to participate in the nomination exercise when it was conducted.
The ‘two primaries’ problem could become the biggest headache
For politicians who participated in a primary under one party before moving to another party and securing a second ticket, the Supreme Court judgment could open a particularly sensitive area of litigation.
Participation in two primaries does not automatically mean that a candidate is disqualified.
But the sequence of events could become important if another aspirant challenges the second nomination.
For example, a court could be asked to examine whether the candidate had validly joined the second party, whether the candidate’s name appeared on the party’s membership register, whether the register was submitted to INEC within the required period and whether the candidate was entitled to participate in the second primary.
The candidate’s first primary could also become relevant evidence in establishing the timing of the political switch.
That makes David Zacharia’s case particularly notable.
He first sought the APC nomination, lost the primary and subsequently moved to the PDP, where he obtained another ticket. If his PDP nomination is challenged, the chronology of that political movement could become central to the dispute.
Pantami case shows how quickly a nomination can collapse
The danger is not entirely theoretical.
Former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, has already suffered a major legal setback after a Federal High Court in Gombe nullified the PDP primary that produced him as the party’s governorship candidate and ordered a fresh exercise.
Pantami had previously pursued the APC governorship ticket before moving to the PDP after the APC adopted another candidate.
His case demonstrates how disputes over nomination procedures can continue even after a candidate has been announced as a party’s flag bearer.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling could now give lawyers and rival aspirants another statutory provision to examine in disputes involving party membership and primaries.
But Supreme Court did not disqualify Obi, Idris HK or Zacharia
There is an important distinction between the Supreme Court’s judgment and the individual cases of the candidates.
The apex court was not determining whether Peter Obi, Idris HK, David Zacharia or any other named 2027 candidate was validly registered as a member of a particular party.
It was determining the constitutional validity of provisions of the Electoral Act.
That means it would be premature to declare that any of the three candidates has lost a ticket because of Thursday’s judgment.
The potential problem is different.
The restored provisions could provide a statutory basis for an eligible challenger to examine the membership records and nomination procedures surrounding an individual candidate.
And where the documents reveal a possible breach, the matter could move from the political arena into the courts.
INEC’s records could become decisive
The Independent National Electoral Commission could hold some of the most important pieces of evidence in any such dispute because the restored provisions directly involve party membership registers submitted to the commission.
If litigation emerges around Obi, Idris HK or Zacharia, the relevant party records and INEC submissions could become central to determining what happened and when.
For Obi, attention could focus on the NDC’s membership records and the short period between his joining the party and its presidential nomination process.
For Idris HK, the focus could fall on the SDP register and the chronology of his membership ahead of the Kogi East primary.
For Zacharia, lawyers could potentially examine records from both the APC and PDP to establish the sequence of his first primary, defeat, defection and subsequent PDP nomination.
That makes the Supreme Court ruling potentially significant far beyond the individual candidates already being discussed.
More nomination disputes could be coming
Nigeria’s 2027 nomination season has already produced a series of disputes over party primaries, defections and candidate lists.
The situation involving Senator Isah Jibrin Echocho, for example, showed how a politician can lose a party primary and still remain at the centre of political negotiations over the next election. The Bureau Journal previously reported Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s efforts to support lawmakers who lost their party primaries.
In Kogi East, the APC’s candidate list has already reflected the outcome of its primary process, with Joseph Erico listed for the senatorial contest. The Bureau Journal also reported on Echocho’s failed return bid and the emergence of Erico as the APC’s Kogi East candidate.
Those developments illustrate how quickly primary outcomes can reshape the political field.
The Supreme Court judgment adds another possible layer: whether the people who emerged from those contests satisfied the membership and nomination requirements applicable at the time.
The candidates are not out — but the paperwork could now decide the fight
The Supreme Court has not cancelled the tickets of Peter Obi, Idris HK or David Zacharia.
Nor has it made a factual finding that any of them was improperly registered or participated unlawfully in a primary.
But it has restored provisions that put party membership registers and nomination procedures back under a much brighter legal spotlight.
For candidates who joined parties shortly before primaries, that could mean renewed scrutiny of their membership dates.
For candidates who moved between parties after participating in another party’s primary, the scrutiny could be even more intense.
The question could ultimately become one of dates, documents and registers: When did the candidate join? When was the name entered? When was the register submitted to INEC? When did the primary take place? And was the candidate legally entitled to participate?
Those questions could determine whether a political controversy remains a war of words or develops into a courtroom battle.
And with the 2027 elections drawing closer, the latest Supreme Court development means some candidates may now have to defend not only how they won their party tickets, but whether they were legally entitled to contest for them in the first place.
The Bureau Journal will continue to track the emerging legal disputes surrounding party membership, primaries, defections and candidate nominations ahead of the 2027 elections.
Get breaking news and latest updates directly on WhatsApp
