KWARA 2027: SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT — LEGAL ANALYST SAYS NO IMMEDIATE THREAT TO EXISTING NOMINATIONS;

Ibrahim Olayinka urges political actors to rely on legal interpretation rather than speculation over INEC v. Zenith Labour Party

By Ibrahim Olayinka
Legal Analyst, Public Commentator & Kwara Citizen
Writes from FCT

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on September 24, 2026, in the case involving the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) has generated considerable discussion within political circles, particularly over its possible implications for the nomination of candidates ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The apex court allowed INEC’s appeal and restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, including Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2). The provisions relate principally to political-party membership registers and the procedures for the nomination of candidates.

Against this background, there have been different interpretations of whether the judgment automatically affects candidates whose names had already been submitted to INEC, particularly candidates who emerged through withdrawal and substitution.

From a legal perspective, however, the effect of the judgment on any particular candidate cannot be determined merely by reference to the headline provisions restored by the Supreme Court. Each nomination or substitution would have to be examined against the applicable electoral law, the facts surrounding the nomination, the relevant INEC timetable and any existing court proceedings or orders.

SUBSTITUTION AND PRIMARY ELECTION ARE DISTINCT PROCESSES

One of the central arguments being advanced in relation to the Kwara situation is that withdrawal and substitution should be distinguished from the original party-primary process.

Under Nigeria’s electoral framework, a political party’s ability to substitute a candidate is subject to statutory conditions. The Electoral Act provides specific rules governing withdrawal and substitution, while pre-election challenges are also subject to constitutional time limits. Section 285(9) of the Constitution provides that a pre-election matter must generally be filed within 14 days of the occurrence of the event, decision or action being challenged.

Previous judicial decisions have also treated nomination and substitution disputes as pre-election matters and examined the standing of persons bringing such challenges. In APM v. INEC, for example, the issue of who has standing to challenge a party’s nomination or substitution was considered by the courts.

Consequently, whether a particular individual has the legal right to challenge a substitution cannot be determined solely by political interest in the matter. The court would have to examine the person’s status, the nature of the complaint, the event being challenged and whether the action was commenced within the constitutionally prescribed period.

KWARA CASES REQUIRE FACT-SPECIFIC LEGAL EXAMINATION

In the specific cases involving Senator Saliu Mustapha and Dr. Kolo Baba Jiya, the argument being made is that their emergence should be viewed within the context of a substitution process rather than an ordinary fresh primary election.

That distinction, if established by the relevant documents and facts, could be significant in determining the appropriate legal provisions applicable to the nominations.

Similarly, questions surrounding the status of persons who may have challenged or sought to challenge such substitutions would have to be determined from the actual court processes, the dates of the relevant events, the capacity in which the plaintiffs approached the court and the reliefs being sought.

It is therefore important to avoid treating every political disagreement over a nomination as automatically capable of nullifying a candidate’s candidature.

THE QUESTION OF TIMING

Another important issue is the date on which the relevant event occurred and the legal position that was operative at that time.

The Supreme Court judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, overturned the Court of Appeal’s July 16 judgment and restored the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

Whether a later appellate judgment affects an earlier political or electoral act is a matter of legal interpretation that may depend on the nature of the judgment, the orders made by the court, the particular statutory provisions involved and the facts of the case.

It would therefore be inappropriate to assume, without examining the certified judgment and the specific facts, that every nomination or substitution previously carried out has either been automatically validated or automatically invalidated by the latest Supreme Court decision.

INEC’S ROLE ALSO HAS LEGAL LIMITS

The debate has also raised questions about the extent of INEC’s powers concerning candidate nomination and disqualification.

The commission operates within the Constitution, the Electoral Act, its regulations and applicable court decisions. INEC’s role in receiving and publishing party nominations does not mean that every dispute concerning the validity of a nomination can simply be determined administratively without regard to the judicial process.

Indeed, INEC itself has previously acknowledged the significance of court proceedings in nomination disputes. In its publication of the 2023 final candidate lists, the commission noted that where court orders had been served on it in relation to aggrieved aspirants or candidates, such orders were reflected in the relevant candidate information.

NO ROOM FOR INTERNET SPECULATION

Against this background, political actors and members of the public would be better served by examining the actual judgment, relevant electoral provisions and individual court processes rather than relying solely on social-media interpretations.

The Supreme Court has now settled the constitutional validity of the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. The remaining question in any individual Kwara nomination dispute is how those provisions apply to the particular facts and procedural history of that case.

In the case of Saliu Mustapha and Kolo Baba Jiya, therefore, the appropriate approach is to examine the records relating to their nomination, withdrawal, substitution, submission to INEC and any subsequent litigation before reaching a definitive conclusion about their status.

The same principle applies to Hon. Saba Yisa Gideon and Hon. Olushola Odetundun. Whether or not their nominations are being challenged in court is a matter that should be established from the relevant court records rather than political commentary.

POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULD PREPARE FOR 2027

The Supreme Court’s decision has undoubtedly added an important legal dimension to preparations for the 2027 elections. With the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act restored, political parties and aspirants now have clearer judicial guidance on the statutory framework governing membership registers and candidate nomination procedures.

For Kwara political stakeholders, the focus should consequently remain on compliance with the law, proper documentation, timely legal action where necessary and preparations for the electoral process.

Rather than relying on assumptions about the consequences of the judgment, interested parties should seek professional legal interpretation of the certified judgment and the facts of each individual case.

The Supreme Court judgment is significant, but its effect on any particular candidate must ultimately be determined by the law and the facts applicable to that candidate.