By Simpson Global Media News Desk
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enforce a Supreme Court judgment on political party membership registers, warning that parties which fail to meet statutory requirements could be prevented from fielding candidates in Nigeria’s 2027 general elections.
The ruling party made the request in a letter dated October 9, 2026, addressed to INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan. The letter, signed by APC National Chairman Nentawe Yilwatda and National Secretary Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, asked the electoral commission to verify compliance with Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 and apply the consequences provided by law where violations are established.
The request follows a Supreme Court judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, in the case of INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, which addressed the statutory requirements governing the submission and use of political parties’ membership registers.
The development has drawn attention to the rules governing party primaries, internal party administration and the nomination of candidates ahead of the next general election.
INEC has separately said it is examining the implications of the judgment and that its interpretation could affect parties and aspirants whose nominations do not comply with the law.
What the APC wants INEC to do
In its letter, the APC asked INEC to establish whether political parties submitted their digital membership registers within the statutory timeframe prescribed by the Electoral Act.
The party specifically referred to the requirement that membership registers be made available to the commission no later than 21 days before the relevant party primaries, congresses or conventions.
The APC argued that the legal provisions should be enforced consistently across political parties rather than treated as optional administrative procedures.
It also asked INEC to apply the statutory consequences of non-compliance, including preventing a party from fielding candidates where the legal conditions for that sanction have been established.
The request is significant because party membership registers help determine who is recognised as a member and who is eligible to participate in the internal processes through which parties select candidates for public office.
The APC’s position is that enforcing the provisions would support compliance with the law and strengthen transparency in party nomination procedures.
However, the party’s request is not itself a final determination that any particular opposition party or candidate has violated the law. Such conclusions depend on the relevant records, applicable legal provisions and decisions by the competent authorities.
What the Supreme Court judgment says
The dispute centres on provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning membership registers and candidate nomination procedures.
According to reports on the judgment, the Supreme Court’s September 24 decision affirmed the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7), alongside a related provision governing the nomination process.
The decision also set aside an earlier Court of Appeal order that had nullified the relevant provisions.
Section 77 establishes rules governing the submission and use of political parties’ membership registers. Under the statutory framework described in the reporting on the judgment, parties must submit their registers within the prescribed period before primaries, congresses or conventions.
The provisions also address which members are eligible to vote or be voted for during party selection processes and the consequences of failing to comply with the requirements.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has therefore renewed scrutiny of whether parties followed the statutory procedures when preparing their membership records and selecting candidates.
The legal question is not simply whether a person belongs to a political party in a general sense. It also concerns whether the party complied with the formal requirements applicable to the relevant nomination process.
For aspirants, the distinction could have significant consequences if their eligibility or nomination is challenged.
For political parties, the judgment places additional importance on maintaining accurate membership records, submitting them within the legally prescribed period and ensuring that internal selection procedures comply with electoral law.
INEC says it is reviewing the implications
INEC has acknowledged the importance of the Supreme Court judgment and the concerns it has raised among political parties and aspirants.
The commission’s National Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, Mohammed Haruna, said during an interview on Trust Television’s Daily Politics programme that INEC would meet to consider the implications of the ruling.
Reports published on October 8 quoted Haruna as saying the commission expected to take a decision the following week.
He also indicated that the judgment could affect whether parties are permitted to field candidates whose names were not included in the membership registers submitted within the required timeframe.
The commission has said it must carefully examine the judgment and the applicable legal requirements before determining the appropriate administrative steps.
This process matters because decisions affecting candidate eligibility can lead to disputes involving political parties, aspirants and electoral authorities.
A consistent approach would require INEC to assess the relevant records and circumstances under the law rather than rely solely on allegations or demands made by individual political actors.
The commission’s eventual interpretation is likely to be closely watched by parties preparing for the 2027 election cycle.
Why the 21-day requirement matters
The requirement to submit membership registers at least 21 days before party primaries, congresses or conventions is intended to establish a formal record before key internal party activities take place.
Such records can help clarify which individuals are recognised as party members for the purposes of participating in internal elections.
Without reliable registers, disputes can arise over membership status, voting rights, eligibility to contest primaries and the legitimacy of candidate selection procedures.
The timing requirement also gives electoral authorities a defined point at which to assess whether the relevant documents were submitted in accordance with the law.
The APC’s request places particular emphasis on verifying the submission dates and determining whether each party met the statutory deadline.
The commission may need to examine records relating to different parties and different nomination events. Compliance questions may therefore depend on the particular timetable, documents and circumstances involved.
The legal consequences should be distinguished from the political debate surrounding the issue. Whether a party has complied is a question to be established from the evidence and applicable law.
Potential implications for candidates
The dispute could have consequences for aspirants whose names were not included in the membership registers submitted by their parties within the required period.
INEC has indicated that the ruling may prevent affected parties from fielding candidates where the statutory conditions for disqualification are met. The commission has also discussed whether affected nominations can be replaced.
That question is important because candidate substitution is often used to address certain changes in a party’s list of nominees. If a nomination is affected by a failure to comply with a mandatory statutory requirement, the legal options available to the party may be different.
The consequences will depend on the law and the commission’s formal interpretation of the judgment.
Several names have appeared in media reports discussing possible implications of the ruling, but the existence of a reported dispute should not be treated as proof that a particular individual has been disqualified.
Any definitive determination must be based on the relevant party register, the nomination records and the legal process applicable to the candidate.
For aspirants, the situation underscores the importance of confirming their membership status and ensuring that their participation in party nomination procedures complies with the applicable rules.
For party officials, it highlights the need to maintain reliable documentation and establish procedures that minimise avoidable disputes.
Internal democracy and party administration
Membership registers are central to internal party administration because they help establish who can participate in the selection of candidates and other party decisions.
Where registers are inaccurate, incomplete or submitted outside the statutory period, disagreements can emerge over who was entitled to participate in primaries or whether the nomination process met legal requirements.
The APC has presented its request as a call for enforcement of the Electoral Act and the Supreme Court’s decision.
The broader issue, however, extends beyond the position of one political party. The relevant statutory provisions apply to political parties subject to the law, and any enforcement process should be grounded in the same legal framework.
Political parties have a responsibility to organise their internal activities in accordance with electoral legislation. Electoral authorities, in turn, must apply the law fairly and transparently.
Clear enforcement can help parties understand their obligations before nomination disputes arise. It can also provide voters with greater clarity about the procedures through which candidates are selected.
At the same time, decisions affecting participation in elections should be supported by evidence and communicated in a manner that allows affected parties to understand the legal basis for the action taken.
The importance of a consistent regulatory process
INEC’s handling of the matter will be important because the commission is responsible for administering Nigeria’s electoral process and ensuring that parties comply with applicable rules.
The commission must consider the Supreme Court’s judgment alongside the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and the records submitted by political parties.
A consistent regulatory process would involve identifying the requirements that apply, checking whether the required documents were submitted on time and determining the consequences of any established breach.
Where disputes arise, the parties concerned may seek clarification or pursue the remedies available under the law.
The APC’s demand for immediate enforcement adds political pressure to a matter that also requires legal and administrative assessment.
The commission’s stated plan to deliberate on the implications of the judgment suggests that the question is still moving through the decision-making process.
Until INEC announces its formal position on the affected cases, it would be premature to assume that every disputed nomination will have the same outcome.
What this means for the 2027 election preparations
Nigeria’s 2027 general elections are expected to involve extensive preparations by INEC, political parties, aspirants and other electoral stakeholders.
The membership-register dispute highlights how decisions made during internal party processes can have consequences beyond party headquarters.
If a party fails to meet a statutory requirement, the issue may affect its ability to nominate candidates for the election. If a candidate’s eligibility is disputed, the resulting legal process can create uncertainty for the party, supporters and voters.
The situation also demonstrates why compliance with electoral rules needs to be addressed well before election day.
Parties that maintain complete records, observe deadlines and document their internal procedures can reduce the risk of nomination disputes. Aspirants can also benefit from understanding the rules governing their eligibility rather than relying only on informal assurances from party officials.
For voters, the immediate issue is not a change to the voting process itself but the legal framework governing who may be nominated to appear on the ballot.
The commission’s decisions on compliance could therefore influence the field of candidates presented to voters in the next general election.
What happens next?
The next significant step is INEC’s consideration of the Supreme Court judgment and the commission’s formal position on how the relevant provisions should be applied.
The APC has requested verification of parties’ compliance and the imposition of statutory consequences where violations are established.
INEC, meanwhile, has said it would examine the implications of the judgment. Its final position will be important in clarifying how the membership-register requirements affect party nominations and whether any affected candidates can be replaced.
Political parties and aspirants will be watching for guidance on the commission’s interpretation and the procedures that will govern any enforcement action.
The legal position should become clearer once INEC communicates its decision and any resulting disputes proceed through the appropriate channels.
The central question remains whether the statutory requirements were met in each relevant case and what consequences the law prescribes where they were not.
As preparations for the 2027 elections continue, the dispute has brought party membership records, nomination procedures and compliance with electoral law into sharper focus.
The outcome will depend on the Supreme Court’s judgment, the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and INEC’s evidence-based application of the rules to the cases before it.
Comments
Post a Comment