The Senate has shut the door on any immediate amendment of the Electoral Act 2026, insisting that the legislation will remain the legal framework for the 2027 general elections despite the fresh legal and political questions triggered by a recent Supreme Court judgement.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Yemi Adaramodu, said the National Assembly would not revisit the electoral law in the middle of preparations for the elections, arguing that doing so could disrupt a process already underway.
Adaramodu said the electoral reform process had been completed specifically to govern the 2027 elections and that any consideration of amendments would have to wait until after the poll.
“We have already done the electoral reform and passed that one. It is meant for the 2027 elections. It is only after it that we can consider it for a review if there is any necessity or calls for amendments and rejigging. That’s when it can come up”, he said.
The senator said the Electoral Act had already passed through the legislative process, received presidential assent, and was currently being implemented by political parties and electoral authorities.
“Anybody who has any petition against it should submit to the Senate. But for us at the Senate and National Assembly, we have passed the Electoral Act into law. It has been assented to, and it is now in use”, he added.
Adaramodu argued that changing the law at this stage would create uncertainty for parties that had already commenced processes leading to the nomination of candidates for the 2027 elections.
“As you know, it is through the Electoral Act that parties produced the candidates who will contest in January and February. So, are you now going to shift the goalposts in the middle of the game? How do you halt an Electoral Act that is already in use for a new one? We are not going to do that”, he declared.
The Senate’s position comes days after the Supreme Court restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 that had been struck down by the Court of Appeal.
In a unanimous judgement delivered by a seven-member panel, the apex court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and held that Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) were not inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Court of Appeal had in July declared Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) unconstitutional, creating uncertainty over their application to political parties preparing for the 2027 elections.
Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) concern political party membership registers and participation in party primaries, while Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods through which political parties may nominate candidates.
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively restored the provisions and removed the legal uncertainty created by the Court of Appeal judgment, which had declared the sections unconstitutional.
The case had reached the apex court after the Independent National Electoral Commission challenged the appellate court’s ruling.
Although the Supreme Court has settled the constitutional dispute over the provisions, the judgement has generated fresh questions about its possible implications for candidates whose party membership, waivers, or nomination processes could be challenged.
Some political parties and candidates, however, have rejected suggestions that the judgement automatically invalidates existing candidacies.
The Peoples Democratic Party, Allied People’s Movement, and Labour Party have maintained that their candidates remain eligible, despite concerns surrounding the restored provisions.
The Nigeria Democratic Congress has also dismissed suggestions that the judgement could affect the candidacies of its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, his running mate, Rabiu Kwankwaso, and former Deputy Senate President, Ovie Omo-Agege.
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, had said the Supreme Court decision should not be subjected to individual interpretations, stressing that anyone challenging the eligibility of a candidate should approach the courts.
