₦airaland Forum

gare:
INEC do the right thing and don't cause a civil war in this country, we know the candidate that would be number one on that list

exactly.

frankson1:
If Chinda's case is allowed to stand, it'd be a very huge embarrassment to INEC and Rivers state as a whole.

it won't stand

Validated:
It will affect NDC, but we are focused on winning the presidential elections, you win big one and lose the small ones, plus Rivers State is now in the bag. No PDP and APC candidates in Rivers, ADC is not strong there too.

I heard PDP has candidate in Rivers State. Also Lulu Briggs is the candidate of NDC

AsomughaChuks02:
It will affect NDC the most, especially in Anambra my state.

yes

helinues:
Those that had logo issue will really be affected

yes, their cases are still in the court

2027: CJN warns election tribunal judges against political influence

Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has charged judges who may serve on the 2027 election petition tribunals to remain impartial, independent and committed to upholding justice in the interest of Nigerians.

Kekere-Ekun gave the charge on Wednesday at the opening of the 2026/2027 legal year of the National Industrial Court in Abuja, stressing the important role the judiciary will play as the country approaches another general election.

She noted that some judges of the National Industrial Court could be called upon to serve on election petition tribunals in accordance with the Constitution and other relevant laws guiding the 2027 elections

Continue reading in the comments section....

The law is bigger than everyone, INEC should do the needful inline with the SC verdict. Starting from Chinda of Rivers state, otherwise INEC is not serious. Please do the needful without fear or favor.

Olukayode Ajulo

The Supreme Court has spoken. We must now allow the law to speak through our conduct.

On September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the Independent National Electoral Commission’s appeal in the dispute concerning Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. It set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgement of the Federal High Court.

The immediate consequence is clear, but it is worth stating it correctly. The Supreme Court did not make these provisions law. The National Assembly enacted them. The Supreme Court has now authoritatively determined that the provisions challenged before it are not unconstitutional on the grounds on which they were challenged. That distinction matters.

The provisions remain part of the law governing our electoral process, and they must be treated accordingly. The reports of the judgment indicate that the seven-member panel, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, specifically upheld Sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as Section 84(2), and held that they were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.

Another point deserves emphasis because it goes to the heart of the constitutional argument. Section 228(a) of the Constitution expressly empowers the National Assembly to make laws providing guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties, including laws regulating the conduct of party primaries, congresses and conventions.

Indeed, in President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor v National Assembly & Ors (2022), the Supreme Court considered the scope of this constitutional power and recognised that the legislative authority of the National Assembly extends to making laws concerning internal party affairs within the constitutional limits prescribed by Section 228(a). That is significant.

The autonomy of political parties is real. But it is not an autonomy exercised in a constitutional vacuum. Party autonomy operates within the Constitution and within legislation validly enacted pursuant to the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s present judgement must, therefore, be understood against that constitutional architecture.


There has been understandable public interest in the fact that the Court of Appeal had earlier reached a different conclusion. Nothing unusual about that in the life of litigation. Courts sometimes disagree, and that is precisely why our judicial system has appellate courts. The important point is that the Supreme Court is the apex court.

Section 287(1) of the Constitution is unequivocal: “The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.” That constitutional command is not ornamental.

See more Punch stories on Google.
The Supreme Court has now set aside the Court of Appeal’s contrary decision. The latter, therefore, cannot continue to be treated as the prevailing judicial position on the constitutional questions determined by the apex court. As the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly emphasised, its decisions bind the lower courts and must be given effect. The controversy has therefore moved from interpretation to compliance.

Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) concern the membership register of political parties and its use in congresses, conventions and primaries. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, these provisions should no longer be approached as though their constitutional validity remains an open question. They are operative provisions of the Electoral Act.

A political party required by law to submit a membership register to INEC cannot reasonably treat that register as a document it may disregard whenever it becomes inconvenient. The Supreme Court’s decision does not, of course, prevent whatever lawful administrative corrections or updates the Electoral Act or valid regulations permit. But the governing principle is straightforward. A statutory requirement cannot be reduced to a matter of political convenience.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has long recognised that not every disagreement within a political party is justiciable. In Onuoha v Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, the Court established the traditional principle concerning the internal affairs of political parties. The Court has since considered that principle in cases including Shinkafi v Yari (2016) and APGA v Anyanwu. But there is an important qualification. Where the legislature has expressly regulated an aspect of the electoral process, compliance with that statutory regime is a matter of law.

Indeed, in PDP v Lawal (2023), the Supreme Court recognised that an allegation of non-compliance with statutory requirements governing the nomination process could properly engage the jurisdiction of the courts. So, the proposition that political parties have internal autonomy cannot be stretched into a proposition that statutory electoral requirements are optional. Autonomy is not immunity from the law.

This is why Section 84(2) deserves equal attention. The same reasoning applies to Section 84(2), which provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods of nominating candidates.

The Supreme Court has now upheld the constitutional validity of that statutory framework in the case before it. The court has not invented a new method of party nomination. Rather, it has determined that the statutory framework enacted by the National Assembly is not unconstitutional on the grounds presented in the litigation.

Political parties therefore need to examine their nomination procedures carefully and ensure that their internal processes conform to the Electoral Act. The principle is neither complicated nor controversial: Political parties are free to conduct their affairs within the law; they are not free to conduct their affairs outside it.

Therefore, my word to political parties and aspirants will be to urge them to take this judgement seriously, and to do so without partisan colour. This is not a judgement that should be viewed simply as a victory for INEC or a setback for a particular political party. It is a judgement of the Supreme Court.

Every political party should, therefore, review its membership register, congress and convention arrangements, primary procedures, nomination guidelines and relevant electoral timetable against the Electoral Act as it now stands.

Aspirants should also do the same. No serious aspirant should leave the legality of the process to chance and hope to resolve it in court after the political contest is over. We have seen enough of that. A candidate should emerge from a lawful process, not become lawful merely because he or she has emerged. That distinction is worth remembering.

INEC should now give clear and practical effect to the judgement. Its guidelines and communications to political parties should reflect the law as the Supreme Court has authoritatively interpreted it, and they should make the relevant requirements clear, communicate applicable timelines properly and apply the law consistently to all political parties.

However, an equally important caution remains. INEC must administer the law; it must not make the law. The commission cannot use its regulatory powers to add requirements that parliament has not imposed, just as it cannot disregard requirements that parliament has imposed and the courts have upheld. Its strength lies not in making electoral law, but in administering it fairly, faithfully and within the limits of its constitutional and statutory mandate.

And as patriots, we must learn to accept judicial decisions. This is a broader issue which, in my view, deserves attention. We must develop a stronger culture of accepting judicial decisions, particularly decisions of the apex court.

It is perfectly legitimate to disagree with a judgment. It is equally legitimate, where the law permits, to seek an appropriate judicial remedy. What is not acceptable in a constitutional democracy is for institutions or political actors to select the parts of a judgment that suit them and disregard the rest.

Section 287(1) does not say that Supreme Court decisions shall be obeyed when convenient. It says they shall be enforced. The rule of law cannot operate on a pick-and-choose basis. So we should let 2027 elections begin with compliance.

The 2027 elections are still ahead of us. There is therefore time for political parties and aspirants to look carefully at their processes, identify areas of possible non-compliance and correct them lawfully before they become disputes. That would be far better than conducting questionable processes today and asking the courts to rescue them tomorrow.

The lesson of this judgement, to my mind, is simple. The Supreme Court has settled the constitutional controversy before it. The Court of Appeal’s contrary decision has been set aside. The statutory provisions upheld by the Supreme Court remain operative.

Political parties must comply. Aspirants must understand the law before entering the contest. INEC’s duty is to administer the law fairly, consistently and within the limits of its statutory powers. And our duty is to remember that elections are not conducted in a legal vacuum.

Politics may be about competition. But the rules of that competition are determined by law. The Supreme Court has spoken. Let us now allow the law to do its work.

Dr Ajulo is the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State

https://punchng.com/politics-must-follow-the-law-when-supreme-court-speaks/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAUyz-RjbGNrBTLPaWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHBkb2YFc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEeao0sdpl9IBCZVgNOcntEuNTgs2JA-OFV_pCkn_yb3KLKWUvTHYgSRZSmgSA_aem_eRnJy876tdsnY5Floqy_Ig

IkeOnyia:
Kingsley Chinda of APC is safe to contest for governor and he has a gladiator in Wike to back him to victory.

the party that submitted his name APC won't be in the ballot. Infact there's Chairmanship tussle in the court too. Chinda won't scale through. Rainbow coalition will be affected too.

2027: INEC Warns Media Over Election Result Declaration

INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has warned media organizations against announcing election results based on privately collated figures during the 2027 general elections.

INEC Chairman, Joash Amupitan, gave the warning on Tuesday in Abuja while speaking at a national stakeholders’ meeting organized to mark 100 days to the 2027 general election, Naija News reports.

Amupitan said media organizations must verify election-related information with the commission before publishing or broadcasting such results.

It's the same party that submit the candidates. Section 77 of the electoral acts stands

2027: Supreme Court Ruling Targets Party Eligibility, Not Individual Candidates, Says INEC

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has clarified that the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Electoral Act 2026 does not automatically disqualify individual candidates from contesting the 2027 general elections. Instead, the ruling focuses on the eligibility of political parties to participate in the polls, particularly where they fail to comply with statutory requirements on membership registers and candidate nominations.

According to a report by Leadership on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, made the clarification during a World Press Conference in Abuja on Tuesday.

He explained that the commission had received the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment and was reviewing its implications for the upcoming elections.

On September 24, the Supreme Court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, reversing an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had voided them.

These provisions govern party membership registers and nomination procedures. Specifically, Section 77(5) requires that only members listed in a party’s register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before primaries can participate. Section 77(7) further stipulates that parties failing to submit such registers cannot field candidates.

The apex court emphasized that these provisions affect the eligibility of political parties, not the personal qualification of individual candidates. Thus, while a party’s non-compliance may render it ineligible to present candidates, the judgment does not directly disqualify any aspirant.

Amupitan noted that INEC had received numerous complaints and inquiries from parties and aspirants. The House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Matters has already urged INEC to audit party submissions to ensure compliance, underscoring the ruling’s far-reaching impact on the 2027 electoral process.

Rainbow coalition is heavily affected here.

We only received the CTC of the Supreme Court judgment this morning, which upheld INEC's control over party registers under Section 77 of the Electoral Act, and it has been reviewed.

- INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN

INEC to Meet Stakeholders Today Ahead of October 10 for Final Replacement of Candidates Affected by Supreme Court Judgement

2027: Reps Committee urges INEC to disqualify candidates affected by S'Court ruling

The House of Reps Committee on Electoral Matters has urged INEC to disqualify 2027 election candidates whose names are not on their party membership regist...

https://punchng.com/2027-reps-cttee-urges-inec-to-disqualify-candidates-affected-by-scourt-ruling

Breaking. Supreme court CTC confirms O. K Chinda's disqualification

Paragraphs from the released CTC of the Supreme court judgement delivered on the 24th of September 2026 has now reiterated and confirmed the said judgement at the Supreme court which compelled all political parties to submit party register 21 days to their primaries

Paragraph one from the CTC reads:

"That the judgement of the court of appeal delivered on the 16th of July 2026 in appeal No: CA/ABJ//CV/750/2026 declaring unconstitutional and void section 77(5) to (7) and section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Activity serial number two of the INEC revised timetable & schedule of activities for 2027 general election" is hereby set aside.

For those that are not aware, section 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 stipulates that: "any candidate whose name is not included in their party register submitted to INEC 21 days prior to their party primaries stands disqualified". Now earlier judgement by the lower appeal court nullified the above section 77(5), but Supreme court has reinstated it

So this leaves O. K Chinda implicated by this judgement from two angles;

1) he risgned on 27th of April but submitted his resignation letter to Mr speaker at the house of reps on 2nd of June 2026, nearly two weeks after contesting APC primaries. He's legally bound to do this at least 21 days before contesting the primaries.

Meaning that he didn't properly resign from PDP before contesting primaries on 21st of May 2026, which further means that he's name is not lawfully included as an APC member/contestant in the register submitted to INEC, and so therefore this means he stands disqualified

2) Now for the second implication, Rainbow Coalition are misinterpreting the judgement and misleading the public by stating that, he resigned on 27th of April and contested election on 21st of May, therefore he satisfies the supreme court judgement of 21 days notice. But that's not correct

The supreme court judgement is not bothering on gap between party resignation and primaries, but it's talking about the gap between when the party register was submitted and when the primaries was conducted, which the judgement says must be 21 days.

Now APC party register was submitted on the 8th of May 2026 while primaries was conducted on the 21st of May 2026, which is 13 days gap, way below the 21 days gap as ordered by the September 24th 2026 Supreme court judgement

In conclusion OK Chinda did not satisfy the new law as described by the latest Supreme court judgement so that means he's automatically disqualified from parading himself as the 2027 Rivers State APC governorship candidate and from contesting the 2027 governorship election

Alvin Idamieibi Igoni Benstowe, senior concerned citizen of Rivers State

Breaking. Supreme court CTC confirms O. K Chinda's disqualification

Paragraphs from the released CTC of the Supreme court judgement delivered on the 24th of September 2026 has now reiterated and confirmed the said judgement at the Supreme court which compelled all political parties to submit party register 21 days to their primaries

Paragraph one from the CTC reads:

"That the judgement of the court of appeal delivered on the 16th of July 2026 in appeal No: CA/ABJ//CV/750/2026 declaring unconstitutional and void section 77(5) to (7) and section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Activity serial number two of the INEC revised timetable & schedule of activities for 2027 general election" is hereby set aside.

For those that are not aware, section 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 stipulates that: "any candidate whose name is not included in their party register submitted to INEC 21 days prior to their party primaries stands disqualified". Now earlier judgement by the lower appeal court nullified the above section 77(5), but Supreme court has reinstated it

So this leaves O. K Chinda implicated by this judgement from two angles;

1) he risgned on 27th of April but submitted his resignation letter to Mr speaker at the house of reps on 2nd of June 2026, nearly two weeks after contesting APC primaries. He's legally bound to do this at least 21 days before contesting the primaries.

Meaning that he didn't properly resign from PDP before contesting primaries on 21st of May 2026, which further means that he's name is not lawfully included as an APC member/contestant in the register submitted to INEC, and so therefore this means he stands disqualified

2) Now for the second implication, Rainbow Coalition are misinterpreting the judgement and misleading the public by stating that, he resigned on 27th of April and contested election on 21st of May, therefore he satisfies the supreme court judgement of 21 days notice. But that's not correct

The supreme court judgement is not bothering on gap between party resignation and primaries, but it's talking about the gap between when the party register was submitted and when the primaries was conducted, which the judgement says must be 21 days.

Now APC party register was submitted on the 8th of May 2026 while primaries was conducted on the 21st of May 2026, which is 13 days gap, way below the 21 days gap as ordered by the September 24th 2026 Supreme court judgement

In conclusion OK Chinda did not satisfy the new law as described by the latest Supreme court judgement so that means he's automatically disqualified from parading himself as the 2027 Rivers State APC governorship candidate and from contesting the 2027 governorship election

Alvin Idamieibi Igoni Benstowe, senior concerned citizen of Rivers State

Cherrybae:
Even Peter Obi and Kwakwanso will be removed, both Mekinde and many others who left their parties to either ADC NDC APM LP PDP

However, chinda met the INEC deadline

Wike na your master

really 🙄🙄🙄

INEC has no choice than to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 restored by the decision of the Supreme Court. In the real sense of it, INEC is applying the Law not the judgment the Supreme Court.Anyone who feels INEC should not obey the Law should go to court, and state why INEC should violate the extent provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

The judgement is very clear and unambiguous.
Supreme court backed the disputed sections of the electoral act.

By this judgement, all political parties in Nigeria must comply with the judgement and INEC must obey it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court shall have binding effect on all authorities and persons accross the Federation of Nigeria (Section 287 sub 1 of the 1999 Constitution).

The days ahead will surely be interesting. We wait to see how this plays out.

Chinda's name will be removed with the CTC. Wike should let it slide. You lose some and gain some.

Chinda names will be remove with this judgement.

Electoral Act 2026: Certified True Copy Of The Supreme Court Judgment.

I explore the Inec to fast track the approval of this electoral act on the lists of candidates.

Court fixes hearing on Chinda’s governorship eligibility Nov. 4.

A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has fixed November 4, 2026, to hear a suit challenging the eligibility of Kingsley Ogundu Chinda to contest the 2027 Rivers State governorship election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The suit, marked FHC/PH/CS/3/2026, was instituted by Samuel Amatonjie against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chinda, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the APC, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the House.

Amatonjie is challenging Chinda’s eligibility to participate in the APC governorship primary, arguing that his defection from the PDP to the APC was not in compliance with Section 68 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, before the party’s screening and primary.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, the applicant informed the court that he had been served with processes filed by some of the defendants on September 28 and requested additional time to study them and respond on points of law.

Justice Mohammed Turaki, after hearing the parties, adjourned the matter until November 4, 2026, for hearing.

Speaking outside the courtroom, Amatonjie said the suit was instituted as a public-interest litigation seeking an interpretation of Section 68 of the Constitution regarding defection by a member of the National Assembly.

He said Chinda’s resignation and defection letter was read on the floor of the House of Representatives by the Speaker on June 2, 2026, and asked the court to disqualify Chinda from contesting the 2027 Rivers governorship if it grants the reliefs sought.

Counsel for the PDP, Paul Daudu, SAN, confirmed that the matter was adjourned to enable the plaintiff respond to processes filed by the defendants.

“It was slated for hearing, but the plaintiff asked for adjournment because he needed to respond to the processes filed by the first, second and third defendants. That is essentially what happened,” Daudu said.

He added that the plaintiff’s position was that Chinda did not resign as Minority Leader of the House of Representatives at the appropriate time.

Counsel for Chinda, Dike Udenna, also confirmed the adjournment, saying the plaintiff had sought time to respond to the preliminary objections and counter-affidavits filed by the defendants.

BREAKING NEWS: LADI ADEBUTU’S NAME NOT ON THE PDP REGISTER SUBMITTED TO INEC

The name of Hon. Ladi Adebutu is not contained in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) ahead of the 2027 Ogun State governorship election.

The Ogun Democratic Accountability Forum (ODAF) has confirmed this from a Certified True Copy of the PDP register obtained from INEC this week, for which the prescribed fee was paid and receipted. On that basis, the group has questioned Adebutu’s eligibility for the PDP governorship ticket, noting that his name was missing from the register submitted to INEC within the statutory period prescribed for political parties ahead of their primaries.

Under Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act 2026, each political party is required to make its membership register available to INEC not later than 21 days before the date fixed for its primaries, congresses or conventions.

INEC initially fixed 21 April 2026 as the deadline for submission of the registers but later extended the final deadline to 10 May 2026 following consultations with political parties and adjustments to the timetable for party primaries.

INEC subsequently confirmed that all 22 registered political parties had submitted their membership registers by 8 May 2026, two days before the extended deadline. The Commission stated that the registers would be subjected to the necessary verification processes in accordance with the law.

ODAF said the Certified True Copy obtained from INEC shows that Adebutu’s name was absent from the document submitted to the Commission at the relevant time.

The group noted that the timeline is significant because the Electoral Act requires parties to submit their membership registers ahead of their primaries and attaches legal consequences to whether an individual’s name appears on the register filed with INEC.

ODAF further stated that Adebutu held his congress under the Tanimu Turaki faction of the PDP. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment of 30 April 2026, which dismissed the faction’s appeal, nullified the Ibadan convention held on 15–16 November 2025 and affirmed the recognised leadership.

The group said Adebutu subsequently moved to the Wike-led structure without undergoing the ordinary membership registration process and that his name was not on the register filed with INEC by the Wike-led faction before the applicable deadline.

ODAF also cited the Supreme Court judgment delivered on 24 September 2026, which restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after setting aside the Court of Appeal decision that had struck down those provisions.

Section 77(5) provides that only members whose names are contained in the register are eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions. Section 77(6) provides that a political party shall not use any register other than the one submitted to INEC for those exercises. Section 77(7) provides consequences where a party fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period.

According to ODAF, the combined effect of these provisions and the Supreme Court judgment is that the membership register submitted within the legally prescribed period is decisive in determining eligibility to participate in party nomination exercises.

The group maintained that a political party cannot subsequently substitute the register already submitted to INEC or retrospectively insert the name of a person who was not originally contained in the document used for the relevant primary.

ODAF therefore called on the INEC Chairman, the Commission’s ICT Department and other units responsible for membership data to ensure that no alteration is made to the register already submitted to the Commission.

It warned that any retrospective insertion into the register would compromise the integrity of the document and breach the provisions of the Electoral Act restored by the Supreme Court.

The group also raised questions over the payment made for Adebutu’s governorship nomination, stating that the money was paid through private business accounts rather than an official PDP account.

The accounts identified by the group were:

Cowries Craft Enterprises — Ample Microfinance Bank — 2010002243
Cowries Craft Enterprises — Parallex Bank — 1000262011
ODAF said the circumstances surrounding those payments, taken together with the confirmed absence of Adebutu’s name from the membership register submitted to INEC, raise serious questions about the process leading to his nomination.

It maintained that participation in a congress conducted under a faction whose national convention was subsequently invalidated by the courts cannot cure the absence of Adebutu’s name from the membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period.

ODAF further stated that the Certified True Copy in its possession is the operative PDP membership register submitted to INEC for the relevant nomination exercise and that the absence of Adebutu’s name therefore raises a substantial question under Sections 77(4), 77(5) and 77(6) of the Electoral Act 2026.

On that basis, the Ogun Democratic Accountability Forum contended that Adebutu stands disqualified from contesting the 2027 Ogun State governorship election and urged INEC to apply the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act to the membership register submitted by the PDP.

Adebutu and the PDP had not responded to the group’s statement at the time of this report.

Inec have received the CTC already. The new list will be published next week

Validated:
Stop stressing yourself, the real Supreme Court justices, Wike and Tinubu will ask Fashola to write the CTC to enable Chinda participate and by extension the others.
Tinubu is Wike's second wife, he reports to Wike.

Chinda, mustapha, Ajagunla and others are there too.