The Supreme Court has restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates, a decision that could place greater statutory obligations on political parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The seven-member panel, led by Justice AdamuJauro, on Thursday allowed the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), set aside the July 16 judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which had dismissed the constitutional challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The apex court held that Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. It also awarded N2 million costs against the ZLP, reports Saturday Guardian.
The decision reverses the Court of Appeal judgment which had voided the disputed provisions after finding them inconsistent with constitutional provisions relating to political parties.
Under Section 77(5), only members whose names are contained in a political party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention are eligible to participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6) prevents a party from using a membership register other than the one submitted to INEC for its primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(7) provides that a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period is not eligible to field a candidate for an election.
Section 84(2), meanwhile, prescribes direct primaries or consensus as the methods for political parties to nominate candidates for elective offices.
The combined effect is that parties preparing for the 2027 elections will have to pay close attention to the membership register submitted to INEC, the timing of its submission and compliance with the statutory procedure for selecting candidates.
But legal practitioners have cautioned against interpreting the judgment as an automatic disqualification of candidates whose nominations may subsequently be questioned.
Reacting to the judgment, legal practitioner, Dr Y.G. Manjo said the Supreme Court had settled the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions but had not determined the validity or invalidity of individual candidates.
According to him, the validity of Section 77 is different from whether a particular candidate complied with the section.
He said any challenge to an individual nomination would still have to be determined on its own facts, including the membership register submitted by the party, when it was submitted, the date of the primary and whether the applicable register was used.
Manjo also cautioned against assuming that the judgment automatically invalidated recent PDP senatorial nominations or substitutions in Kwara State.
He said questions surrounding candidates such as Senator Saliu Mustapha and DrKolo Baba Jiya would have to be determined by examining the circumstances of their respective nominations, rather than by relying solely on the Supreme Court’s general pronouncement on Sections 77 and 84.
Another lawyer, P.D. Pius, however, highlighted the practical implications of the restored provisions for parties preparing for 2027.
Pius said the law requires parties to submit specified details of members who intend to participate in party primaries within the prescribed period, stressing that the membership register used at the primary must correspond with the register submitted to INEC.
He also interpreted the judgment as reinforcing the statutory requirement for direct primaries or consensus in the nomination of candidates.
His position is that parties may therefore face legal challenges where their nomination processes do not comply with the requirements of the Act.
Pius further argued that the restored provisions could affect attempts by politicians to move from one party to another shortly before a primary where the necessary membership-registration requirements have not been met.
However, such consequences would depend on the facts of each case and any challenge brought before a competent court.
