THE Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has said political parties that field candidates whose names were not in the registers submitted to the commission will not be allowed to participate in the 2027 elections.
The Supreme Court had, in a 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.
INEC National Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, Mohammed Haruna, spoke on the implications of the judgment while speaking on Trust TV’s Daily Politics programme on Wednesday evening.
Haruna said the affected parties would also not be allowed to substitute such candidates, arguing that parties should not benefit from violations of the law.
He said the commission was expected to make a definite pronouncement on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment by Tuesday next week.
“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.
According to him, depending on when the commission concludes its review, some political parties may be unable to field candidates for some elective positions.
“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 the delay in INEC’s final position was due to the need to obtain legal advice after receiving the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment.
Haruna said the commission had to exercise caution because forged copies of court judgments had been presented in the past.
“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.