By Simpson Global Media News Desk
The release of the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the legal dispute over Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 has provided further detail on how political-party membership registers and candidate nomination procedures are to operate ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The seven-member Supreme Court panel, in its September 24, 2026 judgment in the case involving the Independent National Electoral Commission and the Zenith Labour Party, restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after the Court of Appeal had earlier declared the provisions unconstitutional.
The Certified True Copy, which became available after the judgment, has since generated renewed discussion among political parties, candidates and legal practitioners because of its explanation of the relationship between party membership registers, internal party primaries and eligibility to field candidates.
A central point in the certified judgment, as reported by THISDAY, is that Section 77 does not itself impose an automatic personal disqualification on an individual political aspirant or candidate. Rather, the statutory consequence in Section 77(7) concerns the eligibility of a political party to field a candidate where the party fails to comply with the prescribed membership-register requirement.
That distinction is significant because public discussion following the September 24 ruling had included questions about whether candidates who changed political parties, joined parties after membership registers were submitted or participated in nomination exercises conducted before the Supreme Court ruling could automatically lose their places on the ballot.
The certified judgment does not, by itself, pronounce individual candidates disqualified in those circumstances.
Instead, it restores the statutory framework governing how political parties must maintain and submit their membership registers and how they must nominate candidates.
The practical implications will depend on the facts of individual party nomination processes and, where disputes arise, on the applicable law and decisions of the courts.
What the Supreme Court Restored
The dispute began with a challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party against provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 dealing with political-party membership registers and candidate nomination.
The Federal High Court in Abuja had initially dismissed the challenge on May 5, 2026.
The matter later went to the Court of Appeal, which on July 16 struck down Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), prompting INEC to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On September 24, the Supreme Court allowed INEC’s appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal judgment.
The apex court also restored the earlier Federal High Court judgment and awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party.
The four restored provisions are central to the current political-party nomination process.
Section 77(5) requires a party's membership register to be submitted to INEC not later than 21 days before a primary, congress or convention. It also limits participation in the relevant party exercise to people whose names are contained in the submitted register.
Section 77(6) prevents a political party from using a different membership register for its primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(7) provides a consequence for a party that fails to submit its membership register within the required period: the party is not eligible to field a candidate for that election.
Section 84(2), meanwhile, provides that political parties are to nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus.
The provisions therefore address two closely connected parts of electoral administration: who is recognised as a participating member during a party nomination exercise and what procedures a party must use to select its candidates.
The Importance of the 21-Day Requirement
The 21-day provision has particular importance because political-party membership registers form the basis for determining who can participate in party primaries, congresses and conventions.
Under Section 77(5), the register is not simply an internal party document.
It has to be submitted to INEC within the statutory timeframe.
The party is then required to use the same register for the relevant internal electoral process.
The arrangement creates a formal record against which disputes over participation can be assessed.
It also establishes a deadline.
A political party cannot simply produce a new list of members after the prescribed submission period and use that list for its primary without potentially running into questions under the law.
The Supreme Court's restoration of the provision therefore returns the membership-register requirement to the centre of the nomination process for the 2027 elections.
The court's judgment, as reported from the Certified True Copy, said the provisions were designed to promote compliance with internal democratic procedures and greater transparency in party primaries, congresses and conventions.
This does not mean that every dispute over a membership register automatically invalidates a primary.
Questions of fact remain important.
A party's actual submission to INEC, the date of submission, the contents of the register, the conduct of the primary and compliance with other statutory requirements can all become relevant where a nomination is challenged.
What Section 77(7) Actually Does
The distinction between party eligibility and individual eligibility has become one of the most closely discussed aspects of the certified judgment.
Section 77(7) says a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period shall not be eligible to field a candidate for the election.
The language is directed at the party.
It does not expressly state that every individual member of such a party is personally disqualified from contesting.
THISDAY reported that the Supreme Court specifically addressed this point in its reasoning, stating that Section 77 did not personally disqualify an individual member from contesting a general election simply because the party failed to submit its digital membership register 21 days before its primary.
The distinction matters because electoral eligibility can arise from several different legal requirements.
A candidate may have to meet constitutional qualifications.
A political party must also meet statutory conditions for sponsoring candidates.
A nomination process must comply with applicable law.
And INEC must administer the election in accordance with the Constitution, Electoral Act and its regulations.
The Supreme Court's reasoning on Section 77 therefore should not be read as creating a general rule that every candidate associated with a disputed party register is automatically disqualified.
The specific legal question in an individual dispute would depend on the facts and the provisions being invoked.
Party Primaries Under the Restored Law
The judgment also restored Section 84(2), which provides that political parties nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus.
This provision affects the formal route through which political parties produce candidates for elective positions.
Direct primaries involve participation by party members in the nomination process, subject to the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
Consensus involves an agreed nomination process among the relevant party structures and aspirants under the conditions recognised by law.
The restoration of Section 84(2) means that political parties preparing for the 2027 elections must operate within that statutory framework.
It also gives courts a clear legislative provision to consider when resolving disputes over whether a party's nomination procedure complied with the law.
The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Act could regulate political-party nomination procedures and that the restored provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution.
That position reversed the July 16 Court of Appeal decision.
The Court of Appeal had reached a different conclusion after the Zenith Labour Party challenged the provisions, arguing that the law improperly interfered with the constitutional framework governing political parties.
The Supreme Court's decision therefore settled the constitutional question at the apex level.
A Case That Moved Through Three Courts
The legal history is important to understanding why the judgment has become politically significant.
The Zenith Labour Party first challenged the disputed provisions at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the case on May 5, 2026.
The party appealed.
On July 16, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and declared the disputed provisions unconstitutional.
That decision temporarily removed the provisions from operation.
INEC then appealed to the Supreme Court.
On September 24, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the Federal High Court's position.
The apex court's decision was unanimous, according to reports on the judgment. A seven-member panel presided over by Justice Adamu Jauro heard the appeal, with the lead judgment delivered from the Supreme Court.
The sequence means the political system experienced different legal positions during the 2026 nomination period.
That history is relevant because many party primaries had already taken place by the time the Supreme Court delivered its judgment.
It has consequently generated questions about the treatment of nomination processes conducted while the Court of Appeal judgment was in force.
Why the Timing Matters
The timing of the Supreme Court decision has created an important legal and administrative context.
Political parties conducted their primaries earlier in 2026 under the electoral timetable then applicable.
The Supreme Court did not deliver its judgment until September 24.
That means the restoration of Sections 77 and 84 came after many parties had already completed their nomination exercises.
INEC officials have previously said the Commission would review the Certified True Copy of the judgment before determining its administrative response.
Wilfred Ifogah, Deputy Director of Voter Education and Publicity, was quoted as saying INEC would meet after receiving the Certified True Copy and review the judgment before reaching decisions on its implications.
The release of the CTC has now supplied the detailed text on which such an institutional review can be based.
This is different from relying solely on summaries of the September 24 oral judgment.
For electoral administrators, political parties and lawyers, the wording of the certified judgment matters because particular orders and reasoning can determine how the ruling is applied.
Political Parties Seek Clarity
The Supreme Court ruling immediately generated questions within several political parties.
Reports after the September 24 decision showed that parties including the Peoples Democratic Party, Labour Party and Allied Peoples Movement said they needed to study the Certified True Copy before determining the full implications for their candidates.
The PDP's National Publicity Secretary, Jungudo Haruna Mohammed, said the party had complied with the relevant provisions but would need to see the certified judgment before commenting on its implications.
The APC similarly said it needed to see the judgment before taking an official position, while noting that it was not a party to the litigation.
The positions demonstrate why the release of the CTC was important.
A court judgment is not ordinarily interpreted solely through headlines or political commentary.
Its operative orders, reasoning and the precise issues decided determine its legal effect.
The subsequent explanations by lawyers have therefore focused on distinguishing what the court actually decided from broader claims about possible consequences for individual candidates.
Candidates Mentioned in the Debate
Several candidates have been discussed publicly in connection with possible implications of the restored provisions.
Those discussions have included candidates in Rivers, Gombe and Nasarawa states, among others.
However, the existence of public discussion about a candidate does not establish that the candidate has been disqualified.
Indeed, legal commentary following release of the CTC has emphasised that the Supreme Court's judgment was concerned with the validity of the statutory provisions and did not issue a general order removing individual candidates from the ballot.
That distinction is especially important in reporting on electoral litigation.
A candidate's name may be challenged in a separate pre-election case.
A political party's primary may be challenged by an aspirant.
A party's membership register may be disputed.
Or INEC may have to determine whether a particular nomination satisfies the statutory requirements.
Each question can involve different facts and legal arguments.
The Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of Sections 77 and 84 does not automatically resolve every possible candidate-specific dispute.
The Gombe PDP Example
The issue has already become relevant to political developments in Gombe State.
The PDP held a fresh governorship primary in Gombe on September 29 after a court ordered a new exercise.
Professor Isa Ali Pantami emerged from the fresh primary, but another aspirant, Khamisu Ahmed Mailantarki, subsequently questioned the result and Pantami's eligibility, according to reports published after the primary.
The dispute has been linked in public discussion to the Supreme Court's September 24 ruling on party membership registers.
However, a report about an eligibility challenge is not itself a judicial finding that a candidate is ineligible.
The relevant evidence would include the party's membership records, the date of submission of the register to INEC, the applicable nomination timetable, the circumstances of the primary and any court orders made in the particular case.
This illustrates the broader point arising from the Supreme Court judgment.
The restored provisions provide the legal framework.
They do not eliminate the need to establish facts in individual disputes.
The Rivers Debate
A similar debate has emerged around the APC's governorship candidate in Rivers State, Kingsley Chinda.
Following the September 24 judgment, reports circulated about whether the restored provisions could affect his candidacy.
Subsequent legal commentary and reporting on the Certified True Copy said the Supreme Court did not issue a specific order disqualifying Chinda or nullifying his nomination.
That does not mean that no legal challenge could be brought concerning a candidate.
It means that the September 24 Supreme Court judgment itself did not make a candidate-specific disqualification order in respect of Chinda.
This distinction between a general statutory ruling and an individual pre-election dispute is central to understanding the present situation.
INEC's Role
INEC occupies a central position in the administration of the rules.
The Commission is constitutionally responsible for organising and conducting federal and state elections and regulating aspects of political-party administration prescribed by law.
Its own regulations and guidelines must operate within the Electoral Act and Constitution.
The Supreme Court's judgment therefore has direct relevance to INEC's regulatory work because it restored provisions that had been struck down by the Court of Appeal.
The Commission had earlier been reviewing its regulations and guidelines to align them with the Electoral Act 2026.
INEC said the review was intended to provide legal and operational clarity ahead of the 2027 electoral cycle, including in areas such as party administration, candidate nomination and compliance.
The release of the CTC gives the Commission a more complete basis for determining how its regulatory processes should reflect the Supreme Court's ruling.
It also provides political parties with greater certainty about the legal framework within which they must operate.
The Election Calendar
The legal dispute is unfolding as the country moves deeper into preparations for the 2027 elections.
INEC's published election timetable provides dates for campaign activities and polling, although the timetable itself has been subject to litigation during 2026.
The Commission's official election material sets out the statutory stages of the electoral process, including campaign periods, voter-register publication and election dates.
The Supreme Court's judgment also set aside the part of the Court of Appeal's decision that had invalidated a corresponding portion of INEC's revised timetable.
That aspect of the ruling matters because an election requires a coordinated timetable.
Political parties need fixed deadlines for primaries, candidate submissions and campaign activities.
INEC needs fixed dates for administrative preparations.
Candidates and voters also need clarity about the electoral calendar.
Legal uncertainty over any of these stages can create additional disputes and administrative pressure.
What the Judgment Does Not Decide
The Supreme Court ruling does not settle every dispute concerning political parties or candidates.
It does not determine which individual candidate will win a primary.
It does not determine which political party will win the 2027 election.
It does not decide the merits of every pending pre-election suit.
It does not automatically remove every candidate whose membership or nomination has been questioned publicly.
It also does not prevent a candidate or aspirant from bringing a separate legal action where the law permits such a challenge.
Instead, the judgment establishes the constitutional validity of the disputed statutory provisions and restores them to operation.
Future disputes will therefore have to be considered against that restored legal framework.
The Role of the Courts
Nigeria's electoral system provides several stages at which disputes can reach the courts.
An aspirant can challenge a party's primary.
A candidate can challenge another candidate's nomination.
A political party can challenge an electoral decision.
INEC decisions can also become the subject of litigation where the law permits.
The courts then determine the particular questions presented before them.
The Supreme Court's September 24 judgment is especially important because it came from the highest court.
The Supreme Court itself describes its appellate jurisdiction as extending to appeals from the Court of Appeal, including constitutional and electoral questions within its jurisdiction.
The restoration of the disputed Electoral Act provisions therefore provides a binding judicial position on the constitutional validity of those provisions.
The details of how they apply to specific disputes can nevertheless continue to be litigated where appropriate.
Internal Democracy and Party Administration
One of the central themes in the Supreme Court's reasoning, according to the CTC as reported by THISDAY, is internal democracy.
The court linked the membership-register requirements to the objective of making party primaries, congresses and conventions more transparent.
The register establishes who is recognised as a member for the purpose of the internal exercise.
The 21-day submission requirement establishes a deadline before the exercise.
The restriction against using another register establishes consistency between the information supplied to INEC and the list used by the party.
The nomination rules then provide a statutory framework for how candidates are selected.
Taken together, the provisions create a formal structure around party nomination.
Political parties remain responsible for complying with the law and their own constitutions, while INEC exercises the regulatory functions assigned to it by legislation.
Why Membership Registers Matter
Membership registers have long been a source of disputes within Nigerian political parties.
Parties can have large memberships spread across wards, local government areas and states.
When an internal primary is conducted, disagreements can arise over who has voting rights, whether delegates were properly selected and whether the list used by the party corresponds with its official records.
The Electoral Act's requirements seek to create a verifiable reference point.
A register submitted to INEC within the required timeframe can be compared with the register used at a primary.
Where the two differ, the discrepancy can become relevant in litigation.
The Supreme Court's judgment therefore strengthens the importance of documentary evidence in future party-primary disputes.
Political parties will need to retain accurate records.
Aspirants challenging a primary may need to establish what register was submitted and when.
INEC may need to maintain accessible records of submissions.
Courts may be required to examine those records where disputes are brought.
The Issue of New Party Members
Another question arising from the restored provisions concerns people who join political parties after the relevant membership register has been submitted.
The law's 21-day requirement means the timing of membership registration can become relevant to participation in a particular primary, congress or convention.
A person whose name is not on the register submitted within the statutory timeframe may face restrictions on participating in the relevant internal exercise.
That is different from saying that the person is permanently barred from politics or from every future election.
The restriction relates to the particular statutory process and the relevant party exercise.
The precise consequences will depend on the circumstances and applicable law.
This distinction is important because political membership can change over time.
Nigeria's electoral cycle involves several elections and nomination exercises.
A person unable to participate in one party primary because of the applicable membership-register deadline may still have political rights in other contexts, subject to the Constitution and electoral laws.
The Significance for Political Parties
For political parties, the Supreme Court decision places renewed emphasis on compliance.
Parties preparing for future nomination exercises will have to pay close attention to the statutory deadlines for membership-register submission.
They will also have to ensure that the register used during a primary corresponds with the register submitted to INEC.
The party's nomination method must also comply with Section 84(2).
These requirements can affect the administrative work of national, state and local party organisations.
They can also affect the ability of aspirants to challenge nomination exercises.
Where a party complies with the law and maintains clear records, disputes may be easier to resolve.
Where records are incomplete or inconsistent, litigation can become more complicated.
The Road to 2027
Nigeria's political parties are now operating in a period of increasing electoral activity.
Campaigns have begun under the 2027 election calendar, and parties are preparing candidates and structures across the country.
The legal environment is therefore becoming as important as the political environment.
The Supreme Court's ruling removes one major area of constitutional uncertainty by restoring the challenged provisions.
At the same time, it may lead to more attention on whether individual parties complied with those provisions during their nomination processes.
That does not necessarily mean that every primary will face litigation.
But where aspirants or parties have evidence of non-compliance, the restored provisions provide a legal framework within which such claims can be considered.
A New Phase of Electoral Litigation
Nigeria has historically experienced extensive pre-election litigation.
The restoration of Sections 77 and 84 adds another layer to the legal framework governing nomination disputes.
The immediate question for political parties is therefore not simply whether the Supreme Court has restored the provisions.
It is whether each party's own processes complied with them.
That is a factual question.
The answer can vary from one party to another and from one primary to another.
It can also vary depending on the date of the primary, the date the membership register was submitted, the register used at the exercise and the nomination procedure adopted.
Courts may ultimately be required to determine disputed cases individually.
What Happens Next
The immediate administrative consequence of the CTC's release is that INEC and political parties now have the certified text of the Supreme Court's decision available for detailed review.
INEC had previously said it would study the CTC before taking decisions on implementation.
Political parties and candidates can similarly examine the judgment and determine how it relates to their nomination records.
Where disputes already exist, lawyers can use the certified judgment in pending proceedings.
Where new disputes arise, the courts will determine whether the facts meet the legal requirements established by the Electoral Act and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The development is therefore likely to keep electoral lawyers, party officials and candidates focused on documentation and compliance as the 2027 elections approach.
A Legal Framework, Not an Election Verdict
The September 24 Supreme Court judgment and the subsequent release of its Certified True Copy have added clarity to an important part of Nigeria's electoral law.
The apex court restored the provisions governing party membership registers and candidate nomination and rejected the Court of Appeal's earlier conclusion that those provisions were unconstitutional.
The certified judgment has also clarified an important point about Section 77: its stated consequence is directed at a political party's eligibility to field candidates, rather than automatically declaring every individual member personally disqualified.
That clarification does not eliminate the possibility of candidate-specific disputes.
Instead, it establishes a framework within which those disputes can be assessed.
For political parties, the message from the restored law is that membership records, nomination procedures and statutory deadlines remain central parts of the electoral process.
For candidates and aspirants, the development means that documentation surrounding their party membership and nomination can remain important if their eligibility is challenged.
For INEC, the judgment provides the judicial position that must inform the Commission's administration of the relevant provisions.
And for the courts, future cases will require examination of the specific facts surrounding individual party primaries and nominations.
As Nigeria moves toward the 2027 general elections, the Supreme Court's decision therefore represents another important stage in the country's evolving electoral framework.
The judgment does not determine the political choices Nigerians will make at the polls.
It instead defines part of the legal structure within which political parties and candidates must operate as the electoral process continues.
Comments
Post a Comment