The Supreme Court has reinstated the critical sections of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to political party membership lists and the nomination of candidates, a decision that could see political parties being saddled with more statutory responsibilities before the 2027 general elections. Read politics news
The seven-member panel led by Justice AdamuJauro on Thursday granted the appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), set aside the July 16 judgement of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgement of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which dismissed the constitutional challenge by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The supreme court ruled 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 , reported Saturday Guardian.
The verdict overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal which had declared the contested provisions null and void on the ground that they were inconsistent with constitutional rules on political parties.
Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act provides that only members whose names are on a political party’s membership record submitted to the INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention are allowed to participate in the exercise. Read political news
Section 77(6) prohibits a party from using any register of membership other than that given to the INEC for the purpose of primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(7) specifies that a political party which fails to submit its register of members within the stipulated time shall not be entitled to nominate a candidate at an election.
Political parties shall propose candidates for elective seats via direct primaries or by consensus in accordance with section 84(2).
The net result is that parties planning for the 2027 polls would have to be very careful about the membership record presented to INEC, the time of its submission and adherence to the legislative procedure for selection of candidates.
However, legal practitioners have warned not to take the judgement as equating to disqualifying candidates, whose nominations may later be challenged.
Reacting to the judgement, legal practitioner, Dr Y.G. Manjo said the Supreme Court has addressed the constitutional legitimacy of the statutory provisions, but has not decided the validity or invalidity of individual candidates.
He said that the validity of Section 77 was distinct from that of a candidate’s compliance with the section.
He said any challenge to an individual nomination would still have to be decided on its own facts, including the membership register supplied by the party, when it was filed, the date of the primary and whether the applicable registration was utilised.
He also cautioned against the assumption that the judgement automatically voided the recent PDP senatorial nominations or substitutions in Kwara State.
“Questions surrounding candidates like Senator Saliu Mustapha and DrKolo Baba Jiya would have to be determined by looking at the circumstances surrounding their respective nominations and not by relying on the general pronouncement of the Supreme Court on Sections 77 and 84,” he said.
But another lawyer, P.D. Pius, pointed to practical consequences of the returned rules for parties gearing up for 2027.
“The law mandates political parties to submit certain details of members who are willing to contest in party primaries within the stipulated period. “The membership register that will be utilised for the primary must be the same register that will be presented to INEC.
He also regarded the judgement as reaffirming the statutory provision of direct primaries or consensus in the nomination of candidates.
He believes this means parties could be exposed to legal proceedings for not following the nomination procedure as required by the Act.
Pius also said the revived regulations might impact efforts by politicians to switch parties just before a primary that doesn’t reach the required level of party-membership registration.
However, such implications would depend on the facts of each case and any challenge made before a competent court.
About the Author
