2027: Supreme Court Ruling Puts Obasanjo, Mustapha, Haske, Abbo, Others’ Tickets Under Scrutiny
Reloaded News Desk
The Supreme Court’s restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has opened a new legal front around several 2027 candidates whose political movements, party switches or nomination processes occurred after earlier contests in other parties.
The ruling did not name or disqualify the affected politicians. Rather, it restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), provisions governing party membership registers and candidate nomination. The Supreme Court held that the provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution.
Under Section 77(5), only party members whose names appear on the membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention are eligible to vote at the exercise. Section 77(6) requires parties to use the submitted register, while Section 77(7) imposes a statutory consequence where a party fails to submit its register as required. Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as nomination methods.
The restoration has consequently brought renewed attention to politicians who moved from one party to another after participating in earlier political contests.
Iyabo Obasanjo — Ogun
Former Senator Iyabo Obasanjo is among the candidates now being discussed.
Obasanjo joined the APC earlier in 2026 and participated in the party’s political process before resigning in May. She subsequently returned to the PDP in June and was presented with the party’s Ogun Central senatorial ticket.
Her case has already generated competing interpretations.
Obasanjo’s media aide has rejected suggestions that the Supreme Court judgment automatically affects her candidacy, stressing that she was not a party to the INEC-Zenith Labour Party case and that the Supreme Court issued no order against her.
The question that could nevertheless arise is whether she satisfied the PDP’s membership and nomination requirements applicable to the particular process through which she emerged.
Saliu Mustapha — Kwara
Senator Saliu Mustapha’s case is another closely watched example.
Mustapha was associated with the APC before moving to the PDP after the APC nomination process in Kwara. He subsequently obtained the PDP ticket for Kwara Central.
Reports following the Supreme Court judgment have raised questions about whether late entrants whose names were not contained in the relevant party register could participate in the nomination process.
The answer, however, cannot be determined simply from the fact that Mustapha changed parties.
The relevant documents would include the date of his PDP membership, the PDP register submitted to INEC, the date of that submission, the nomination procedure used by the party and any applicable waiver.
Kolo Jiya — Kwara North
Another Kwara case is Kolo Baba Jiya, the PDP candidate for Kwara North.
Jiya’s nomination has attracted particular attention because of a separate dispute over the party’s nomination process. A legal analysis published after the Supreme Court decision argues that his case could involve both the membership-register provisions and the validity of the substitution that produced his candidacy.
Those are matters that would ultimately have to be determined through the appropriate legal process rather than by the Supreme Court’s general judgment alone.
Abdulrahman Haske — Adamawa
In Adamawa, Abdulrahman Haske contested the APC governorship primary and lost. He subsequently left the APC and secured the governorship ticket of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
His case therefore raises the same broad question facing other recent defectors: whether his membership of the new party and the process through which he obtained its ticket complied with the restored statutory requirements.
Elisha Abbo — Adamawa
Former Senator Elisha Abbo is another Adamawa politician whose candidacy has attracted attention following the judgment.
Abbo emerged as the Labour Party’s governorship candidate through a consensus arrangement. His case is different from that of a politician who simply lost a primary in one party and immediately crossed to another, meaning the relevant question is the chronology of his membership and the legality of the Labour Party’s nomination process.
Mohammed Abubakar Adamu — Nasarawa
Former Inspector-General of Police Mohammed Abubakar Adamu contested the APC governorship primary in Nasarawa State but lost.
He subsequently resigned from the APC, joined the Social Democratic Party and later emerged as the SDP’s governorship candidate through a substitution primary in September.
The timing of his movement and the circumstances surrounding his SDP nomination are therefore relevant to the broader legal questions raised by the restored Electoral Act provisions.
Ovie Omo-Agege and Victor Ochei — Delta
Former Deputy Senate President Ovie Omo-Agege contested the APC Delta Central senatorial primary, lost to Senator Ede Dafinone and subsequently moved to the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), where he received a waiver to pursue the senatorial ticket.
Former Delta State House of Assembly Speaker Victor Ochei followed a similar route and also received an NDC waiver.
Their cases raise an especially important question about the interaction between party waivers and the statutory membership-register requirement.
A waiver granted by a political party may resolve an internal party membership question, but whether it satisfies every requirement of the Electoral Act is a matter that could depend on the precise circumstances and documents.
Shehu Buba — Bauchi
Senator Shehu Buba is another politician whose political journey has attracted attention.
After the APC governorship primary process in Bauchi, he moved to the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) and secured its governorship ticket. His case is therefore another example of a politician changing platforms after an earlier nomination contest.
Kingsley Chinda — Rivers
Rivers State presents a somewhat different situation with Kingsley Chinda, who moved from the PDP to the APC and emerged as the APC governorship candidate.
The timing of his formal resignation from the PDP, public emergence as an APC member and participation in the APC primary has generated questions in Rivers State. However, the APC has publicly dismissed concerns about his candidature and said it remains intact.
That makes Chinda another case where the actual membership records and chronology will matter more than political claims about the Supreme Court judgment.
Isa Pantami — Gombe
Former Communications Minister Isa Ali Pantami presents the most advanced legal case among the politicians now being discussed.
Pantami left the APC after the party’s governorship primary process and joined the PDP, subsequently emerging as the PDP’s governorship candidate.
But a Federal High Court in Gombe has already nullified the PDP process that produced him and ordered a fresh primary. The new primary is scheduled for September 29.
Unlike the other cases, therefore, Pantami’s candidacy is already the subject of a specific judicial order independent of the Supreme Court’s broader Electoral Act judgment.
What The Supreme Court Actually Changed
The central issue is not simply whether a politician defected.
The restored provisions require parties and candidates to satisfy specific statutory conditions concerning membership registers and nomination procedures.
For each case, the critical questions include:
When did the politician join the new party?
When did the party submit its membership register to INEC?
Was the politician’s name on the relevant register?
Was a waiver granted, and if so, when and under what party rules?
Did the politician participate in a primary, emerge through consensus or become a candidate through substitution?
Was the nomination subsequently challenged in court within the applicable legal framework?
These questions are particularly important because the Supreme Court did not issue a blanket order declaring recent defectors ineligible for the 2027 elections.
The court restored the legal provisions. Individual nominations must still be tested against those provisions and the facts of each case.
For the politicians now under scrutiny, the decisive evidence may therefore be found not in political statements but in party membership registers, INEC filings, waiver documents, primary results, substitution notices and court records.
With the 2027 election cycle approaching, those documents could become central to a new wave of pre-election litigation across several states.
Reloaded News — NEWS THAT INFORMS. MEDIA THAT TRANSFORMS
