The Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) and its governorship candidate, Hon. Kieghe Nature Dumale, have lodged a suit in the Federal High Court at Port Harcourt seeking to disqualify the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the upcoming rivers governorship election scheduled for February 6, 2027. The filing, recorded under suit number FHC/PH/CS/193/2026, names the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the first defendant and the APC as the second, alleging that INEC failed to apply a recent Supreme Court judgment that requires non‑compliant parties to be excluded from the poll.
According to the petition, the Supreme Court delivered its decision on September 24, 2026 in Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026, a case that involved INEC and the Zenith Labour Party. The ruling examined the constitutionality of Sections 77(5)‑(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 and affirmed INEC’s power to enforce compliance and sanction parties that do not meet the statutory requirements. INEC Chairman Prof. Joash Amupitan, SAN, is reported to have publicly pledged that the commission would study the judgment and work toward compliance.
The PRP’s complaint centers on the fact that, despite the Supreme Court’s clarification, INEC published a final list of parties and candidates that still includes the APC for the rivers governorship election. The plaintiffs argue that INEC applied the judgment inconsistently: it excluded other parties that failed to satisfy Sections 77(5)‑(7) but left the APC on the ballot. They point to an INEC press release dated October 13, 2026 which claimed the commission had applied the Supreme Court ruling when preparing the final list, yet the APC remained listed.
A key piece of evidence presented by Dumale is a letter dated April 20, 2026 in which the APC informed INEC that its primaries for the 2027 general elections would commence on May 15. The PRP contends that this timeline raises doubts about whether the APC met the mandatory compliance checks stipulated in the Electoral Act, especially the requirements that parties conduct transparent primaries and submit relevant documentation to INEC within prescribed periods. The plaintiffs assert that INEC’s failure to verify the APC’s adherence to these provisions constitutes a breach of the Supreme Court’s directive.
The suit asks the court to declare the APC ineligible to contest the rivers governorship election and to order INEC to remove the party and its candidate from the official list of approved participants. It also seeks a declaration that INEC acted inconsistently by excluding some parties on compliance grounds while permitting the APC to remain.
If the court grants the relief sought, the APC would be barred from fielding a candidate in one of Nigeria’s most politically significant states. Rivers State, a major oil‑producing region, often serves as a bellwether for national politics, and the governorship race typically draws intense scrutiny from both local stakeholders and the federal government. The outcome of this litigation could set a precedent for how strictly INEC must enforce Supreme Court rulings concerning party compliance in future elections across the country.
The APC has not yet issued a public response to the filing, and its legal team is expected to appear before the court in the coming days. Meanwhile, INEC’s position remains that it has acted in line with the Supreme Court’s guidance, a stance reflected in its October 13 press release. The commission maintains that it conducted a thorough review of all parties’ compliance status before finalising the candidate list, though the PRP disputes the adequacy of that review in the case of the APC.
Legal experts note that the case hinges on the interpretation of Sections 77(5)‑(7) of the Electoral Act 2026, which outline the procedural requirements for party primaries, including the need for transparent processes, proper notification to INEC, and the submission of primary results. The Supreme Court’s earlier judgment clarified that failure to meet these standards renders a party ineligible to contest elections. Whether the APC’s May 15 primary schedule satisfies those conditions will likely be examined in detail during the court hearing.
The broader political context adds weight to the dispute. The 2027 general elections are set to be fiercely contested, with the APC, the ruling party at the federal level, seeking to retain or expand its influence in key states such as Rivers. Opposition parties, including the PRP, see the enforcement of compliance rules as a way to level the playing field and prevent any party from gaining an unfair advantage through procedural shortcuts.
Observers from civil society groups have called for transparency in INEC’s compliance checks, urging the commission to publish detailed findings on each party’s adherence to the Electoral Act. Such disclosure, they argue, would bolster public confidence in the electoral process and reduce the likelihood of litigation like the current suit.
The Federal High Court is expected to set a hearing date within the next two weeks. Should the court issue an interim order before the February 6 election, INEC may be compelled to revise the list of eligible parties, potentially reshaping the candidate field in Rivers State. The PRP has indicated that it will continue to monitor the proceedings closely and is prepared to appeal any adverse decision.
As the legal battle unfolds, the APC’s campaign machinery is likely to intensify its efforts to demonstrate compliance and secure its place on the ballot. Whether the court will side with the PRP’s argument that INEC acted inconsistently remains to be seen, but the outcome will have immediate ramifications for the upcoming rivers governorship election and could influence how electoral compliance is enforced nationwide.
