By Simpson Global Media News Desk
The Supreme Court has restored key provisions of Nigeria's Electoral Act 2026 governing political-party membership registers and the nomination of candidates, setting out an important legal framework for parties as preparations intensify for the 2027 general elections.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, September 24, a seven-member panel of the apex court allowed an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and set aside the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal that had voided portions of the new electoral law.
The provisions at the centre of the case include Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2). The first three deal with political-party membership registers and participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions, while Section 84(2) concerns methods through which parties nominate candidates for elective positions.
Justice Adamu Jauro led the seven-member Supreme Court panel that delivered the judgment.
The court held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and consequently restored the position reached by the Federal High Court in Abuja earlier in the case.
The judgment also awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), which had initiated the legal challenge.
The ruling comes less than four months before the scheduled January 16, 2027 presidential and National Assembly elections and gives political parties and INEC a clearer legal position on some of the rules governing internal party processes.
INEC's published timetable places the presidential and National Assembly elections on January 16, 2027, followed by governorship and State House of Assembly elections on February 6.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the Electoral Act 2026 could impose statutory requirements on political parties concerning their membership registers and the nomination of candidates without violating the constitutional provisions governing political parties.
The Zenith Labour Party had challenged the provisions, arguing that they amounted to unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
The dispute eventually moved through three levels of the Nigerian court system.
The Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the original challenge on May 5, 2026.
The ZLP appealed.
On July 16, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and voided the disputed provisions relating to party membership registers and candidate nomination.
INEC subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
After hearing arguments from the parties, the Supreme Court reserved judgment on September 16.
One week later, on September 24, the apex court delivered its decision and reversed the Court of Appeal's position.
The result is that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 remain operative.
That means political parties must continue to comply with the statutory requirements concerning the membership registers they submit to INEC and the nomination procedures specified by the law.
The Membership Register Rules
Section 77 of the Electoral Act contains detailed requirements concerning political-party membership records.
The law requires a registered political party to maintain a digital register of its members containing information including the member's name, sex, date of birth, address, state, local government area, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number and photograph.
The Act provides for the register to exist in both hard and electronic forms.
It also requires a party to provide the register to INEC within the period specified by law before its primaries, congresses or conventions.
The provisions restored by the Supreme Court go further.
Section 77(5) states that only members whose names appear in the relevant membership register are eligible to vote or be voted for at party primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(6) provides that a political party cannot use another register for those exercises instead of the register submitted to INEC.
Section 77(7) states that a party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period will not be eligible to field a candidate for that election.
These requirements make the membership register more than an administrative record.
It becomes part of the legal framework determining participation in the internal processes through which parties select candidates.
The Supreme Court's decision therefore leaves those requirements in place as parties prepare for the next general election cycle.
Why the Register Matters
Political parties are responsible for choosing the candidates they sponsor in elections.
The process by which those candidates emerge can involve primaries, consensus arrangements and other procedures provided for under the Electoral Act and applicable party rules.
Membership registers become important because they establish who belongs to the party and who is entitled to participate in internal electoral processes.
Without a reliable register, disputes can arise over who is entitled to vote in a primary, who is eligible to contest for a party ticket and whether individuals were legitimately members when a particular party exercise took place.
The 2026 Act therefore attempts to create a formal record that can be referenced when questions arise about party membership and participation.
The Supreme Court's judgment means the statutory framework remains available to INEC when administering the electoral process.
It also means political parties cannot rely solely on internally maintained records that differ from the register submitted to the electoral commission for the relevant exercise.
The Candidate-Nomination Question
The other major issue in the case concerns Section 84.
The provision addresses the process through which political parties nominate candidates for elective positions.
According to the text of the Electoral Act, Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods by which political parties may nominate candidates.
The legality of that provision was challenged alongside the membership-register requirements.
The ZLP argued that the provisions conflicted with constitutional protections governing political parties.
The Federal High Court rejected the challenge.
The Court of Appeal subsequently voided the relevant provisions.
The Supreme Court has now restored them.
This does not mean that every political party must conduct its internal affairs in exactly the same way.
Rather, the judgment confirms the statutory framework within which parties must conduct their nomination processes.
The practical effect will depend on the particular party's constitution, timetable, rules and the nomination method it adopts within the boundaries of the Electoral Act.
How the Dispute Started
The legal dispute originated with the Zenith Labour Party.
The party filed suit number FHC/ABJ/509/2026 at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
It challenged provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing that the law's requirements concerning membership registers and candidate nomination were inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar, dismissed the case on May 5.
The ZLP then appealed to the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026.
The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on July 16.
It allowed the appeal in part and voided the disputed provisions.
That decision created uncertainty over how the membership-register and nomination provisions would apply during the preparations for the 2027 election.
INEC responded by taking the matter to the Supreme Court.
The commission's appeal was registered as SC/CR/495/2026.
The Supreme Court subsequently heard arguments from the parties before reserving judgment on September 16.
The judgment delivered on September 24 resolved the immediate constitutional dispute at the apex judicial level.
The Constitutional Argument
At the heart of the dispute was the relationship between the Electoral Act and constitutional provisions dealing with political parties.
The ZLP relied, among other provisions, on Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution.
Those provisions form part of the constitutional framework governing political parties and their participation in elections.
The party argued that Parliament's statutory requirements concerning membership registers and candidate nomination intruded into areas that should remain within the control of political parties.
INEC took the opposing position in defending the challenged provisions.
The electoral commission argued that the Electoral Act provisions were valid and fell within the legislative framework for regulating elections and political parties.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the position that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution.
That conclusion restores the legal framework Parliament enacted in the 2026 Electoral Act.
The ruling therefore does more than settle a disagreement between INEC and one political party.
It clarifies the legal status of statutory requirements that will affect political parties across the country during the 2027 electoral cycle.
What It Means for Political Parties
For political parties, one immediate consequence is the need to maintain and submit membership records in accordance with the Electoral Act.
Parties participating in the 2027 elections will need to ensure that their membership information complies with the law and that the relevant register is available to INEC within the prescribed timeframe.
The restored provisions also mean that questions about membership eligibility can have consequences during party primaries and other internal exercises.
A person whose name is not included in the applicable register could face difficulty participating in a primary as a voter or candidate under Section 77(5).
Similarly, a party that fails to comply with the statutory submission requirement faces the consequence stated in Section 77(7).
The practical significance is therefore considerable for party administrators.
Membership registration is no longer simply an internal organisational matter under the restored provisions.
It is linked to statutory requirements administered within the broader electoral framework.
Implications for Party Primaries
Party primaries are often the point at which internal party competition becomes most intense.
Candidates seek nominations for the presidency, governorships, National Assembly seats and state legislative positions.
The Supreme Court's judgment provides legal certainty on the particular provisions governing those processes.
Parties must operate within the requirements of Section 84 and the other applicable provisions of the Electoral Act.
At the same time, the details of how a particular primary is organised remain subject to the relevant party constitution and rules, provided they comply with applicable law.
The distinction matters because the Supreme Court did not decide which individual candidates should emerge from any party.
It decided the validity of the legal provisions under which parties conduct their nomination processes.
The actual selection of candidates remains a matter for political parties and their members under the applicable rules.
A Court Battle That Came Close to the 2027 Election
The timing of the judgment is significant.
Nigeria's 2027 general election preparations are already underway.
INEC's timetable identifies January 16, 2027 for the presidential and National Assembly elections and February 6 for governorship and State House of Assembly elections.
INEC has also published a final list of presidential candidates and running mates for the presidential contest.
The list contains 18 presidential candidates and their running mates across different political parties.
With the presidential field already published, the electoral process has moved into a phase in which the practical application of election rules becomes increasingly important.
The Supreme Court ruling removes one significant area of legal uncertainty concerning party membership registers and nomination procedures.
It does not, however, eliminate all possible election-related disputes.
Political parties and candidates can still challenge decisions or processes where they believe applicable laws or party rules have been breached.
The judgment simply establishes the Supreme Court's interpretation of the particular provisions involved in this case.
Other Political Parties Were Also Before the Court
The September 24 proceedings included more than the ZLP-INEC dispute.
The Supreme Court also dealt with separate appeals involving the Social Democratic Party and the Youth Party.
According to reports on the judgments, the court dismissed the SDP appeal and struck out the Youth Party's appeal after upholding INEC's position in those matters.
The Youth Party case was struck out after the court found the appeal incompetent, with reports stating that it had been filed one day outside the prescribed period.
The SDP matter was heard on its merits and dismissed.
These decisions form part of a wider pattern of political parties using the courts to challenge aspects of the electoral framework.
For INEC, the judgments reinforce the commission's position on the administration of the rules governing registered political parties and the electoral process.
For political parties, they demonstrate the importance of meeting statutory deadlines and procedural requirements when challenging electoral decisions.
INEC's Role
The Independent National Electoral Commission has constitutional responsibility for organising elections in Nigeria.
Its functions include registering political parties, conducting elections and administering various statutory requirements established by electoral legislation.
The Electoral Act 2026 provides the statutory framework within which many of those responsibilities are exercised.
The Supreme Court's judgment therefore gives INEC a clearer basis for applying the restored provisions.
The commission can continue to require political parties to submit membership registers in accordance with the Act.
It can also apply the statutory requirements to party nomination processes.
The judgment does not give INEC unrestricted authority over political parties.
Its powers remain subject to the Constitution, the Electoral Act and judicial review.
But where the law has now been upheld by the country's highest court, parties must take those provisions into account when organising their internal electoral activities.
The Importance of Digital Membership Records
The membership-register provisions also reflect the increasing digitisation of electoral administration.
The Electoral Act requires parties to maintain digital membership registers containing multiple categories of identifying information.
The stated information includes names, addresses, political wards, polling units, National Identification Numbers and photographs.
The objective is to create a more structured record of party membership.
Such records can potentially help reduce disputes over whether an individual is a legitimate member of a party at the time of a primary.
But maintaining such a system also places responsibilities on political parties concerning the accuracy, security and timely updating of their records.
Errors in membership data could become consequential if a person's eligibility to vote or contest in a primary depends on the register.
The statutory framework therefore makes accurate record-keeping an important part of internal party administration.
Potential Effect on Internal Disputes
Election disputes in Nigeria frequently begin inside political parties.
A disagreement over membership can become a dispute over eligibility to vote at a primary.
A disagreement over the conduct of a primary can become a challenge to the nomination of a candidate.
A dispute over a candidate's nomination can subsequently reach the courts.
The restored Electoral Act provisions provide specific statutory points against which some of these disputes can be measured.
For example, the membership register submitted to INEC can become relevant when determining who was eligible to participate in a particular party exercise.
Likewise, the statutory requirements concerning nomination methods provide a legal framework for examining whether a party complied with the applicable law.
This does not mean every internal dispute will be resolved automatically.
Courts may still have to examine evidence concerning what a party did, when it did it and whether it complied with the law and its own rules.
But the Supreme Court judgment removes uncertainty over whether these particular statutory provisions themselves are constitutionally valid.
What the Court Did Not Decide
It is important to distinguish the constitutional ruling from questions that remain political or administrative.
The Supreme Court did not choose candidates for any political party.
It did not determine which party will win the 2027 election.
It did not decide the merits of individual presidential campaigns.
It also did not establish that every future party dispute will be resolved in the same way.
The ruling addressed the validity and application of particular provisions of the Electoral Act.
Those provisions now remain part of the legal framework for the 2027 elections.
Political parties will still have to comply with other requirements under the Constitution, Electoral Act, INEC regulations and their own applicable rules.
Why the Decision Matters Before Campaigning Intensifies
Nigeria is moving deeper into the 2027 election cycle.
The final presidential candidate list has already been published, and political actors are increasingly organising campaign structures across states.
Recent political developments have included preparations by the governing All Progressives Congress and various opposition parties and coalitions.
The legal environment in which those activities occur is therefore becoming increasingly important.
The Supreme Court ruling provides a settled judicial interpretation on the membership-register and nomination provisions.
That clarity may be particularly relevant to parties organising internal structures, resolving membership questions and documenting nomination procedures.
It also means that political parties cannot treat the disputed provisions as legally suspended simply because they were previously struck down by the Court of Appeal.
The apex court has now restored them.
Electoral Administration and Public Confidence
The legal certainty created by a final Supreme Court decision is also relevant to public understanding of the electoral process.
Voters may not participate directly in party primaries, but the rules governing those primaries determine which candidates ultimately appear on the ballot.
If the process for selecting candidates is disputed, the dispute can continue into the election period and potentially into post-election litigation.
A clearly defined legal framework can help establish the standards against which party processes are assessed.
However, the existence of a law does not by itself guarantee that every political party will comply with it.
Implementation, enforcement and access to effective remedies remain important.
The Supreme Court's ruling establishes the legal position.
The practical outcome will depend on how political parties and INEC implement that position.
The Timeline Ahead
With the Supreme Court decision delivered on September 24, attention now turns to the remaining stages of the 2027 electoral timetable.
INEC's official election schedule identifies January 16, 2027 for the presidential and National Assembly polls and February 6, 2027 for governorship and State House of Assembly elections.
That leaves political parties with a limited period in which to organise their structures, manage campaign operations and comply with the various administrative and legal requirements connected with the elections.
The Supreme Court decision means the membership-register and nomination rules will form part of that process.
Political parties will need to ensure that their records and procedures are consistent with the law.
INEC, in turn, will be responsible for implementing its statutory responsibilities under the restored framework.
A Legal Issue That Began With One Party Could Affect the Wider Election
The original case was brought by one political party, but the Supreme Court's ruling has consequences beyond the immediate litigants.
The provisions challenged by the ZLP are provisions of the Electoral Act.
Their restoration therefore applies within the statutory framework governing registered political parties generally.
That is why the case has attracted attention beyond the parties directly involved.
The membership-register requirements concern how parties document their members.
The nomination provisions concern how parties select candidates.
Both issues affect the transition from internal party politics to the formal electoral ballot.
The Supreme Court has now provided a final judicial determination on their constitutional validity.
What Political Parties Should Watch
The immediate areas requiring attention include membership records, submission deadlines, eligibility for internal party exercises and compliance with nomination procedures.
Parties will also need to monitor any further regulations or administrative guidance issued by INEC under the Electoral Act.
Because electoral processes operate according to deadlines, procedural mistakes can become difficult to correct once a statutory window closes.
The separate dismissal of the Youth Party's appeal also illustrates the importance of procedural compliance in election litigation.
Courts operate according to rules concerning filing, jurisdiction, evidence and deadlines.
Political parties seeking judicial remedies therefore have to satisfy those requirements as well as present substantive arguments.
The Broader Electoral Reform Question
The dispute also illustrates one of the continuing questions in Nigeria's electoral system: how far government legislation should regulate the internal operations of political parties.
Political parties are private organisations with constitutional roles in the electoral system.
They have their own constitutions, leadership structures and internal procedures.
At the same time, they are essential participants in public elections and therefore operate within a legal framework established by the Constitution and electoral legislation.
The boundary between internal party autonomy and statutory electoral regulation has been the subject of repeated legal disputes.
The Supreme Court's September 24 judgment provides an important interpretation of that boundary for the provisions at issue.
It does not necessarily settle every future constitutional question concerning political-party administration.
But it establishes the legal status of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The Road to January 2027
Nigeria's political parties are now operating under a clearer framework as the country approaches the 2027 elections.
The Supreme Court has restored the requirements concerning party membership registers and candidate nomination that had been voided by the Court of Appeal.
The ruling followed a legal process that began at the Federal High Court, moved to the Court of Appeal and eventually reached the country's highest court.
The final decision was delivered after the Supreme Court heard arguments from the parties and reserved judgment.
For INEC, the ruling removes an important legal uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the 2026 Electoral Act.
For political parties, it confirms that membership registers and nomination procedures must be handled in accordance with the restored statutory requirements.
For candidates and party members, the provisions establish rules governing eligibility to participate in internal party processes.
And for voters, the importance lies indirectly in the effect those internal procedures have on the candidates who eventually appear on the ballot.
What Happens Next
The next phase will be implementation.
Political parties will have to operate under the restored provisions as preparations for the 2027 elections continue.
INEC will continue administering the electoral timetable and its statutory responsibilities.
Any new disputes that arise from the implementation of the law could still be taken through the courts, depending on the facts and applicable legal remedies.
But the constitutional question decided by the Supreme Court in this case has now been settled.
The provisions are valid and remain part of Nigeria's Electoral Act 2026.
The court's N2 million cost order against the Zenith Labour Party also concludes the immediate litigation between the party and INEC over the challenged provisions.
The wider political process, however, continues.
With January 16, 2027 set for the presidential and National Assembly elections, parties have entered a period in which legal compliance, organisation and campaign preparation will increasingly intersect.
The Supreme Court judgment therefore becomes one of the significant legal developments on the road to the 2027 polls—not because it determines the political contest itself, but because it establishes the rules under which an important part of that contest will be organised.
The immediate message from the apex court is clear: the membership-register and candidate-nomination provisions contained in the Electoral Act 2026 remain legally operative.
Political parties, candidates, INEC and other participants in the electoral process will now have to conduct their activities with those provisions firmly within the applicable legal framework.
As the 2027 election timetable advances, the focus will shift from the constitutional challenge itself to how the restored provisions are implemented across Nigeria's political parties and how effectively the electoral institutions, parties and courts handle disputes that may arise from their application.
Comments
Post a Comment