The Supreme Court has restored the validity of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political-party membership registers and the nomination of candidates, after the Court of Appeal had earlier declared the provisions invalid. In SC/CR/495/2026, the Supreme Court, on 24 September 2026, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16 July 2026, and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court upholding sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The Supreme Court has restored the validity of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political-party membership registers and the nomination of candidates, after the Court of Appeal had earlier declared the provisions invalid.
In SC/CR/495/2026, the Supreme Court, on 24 September 2026, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16 July 2026, and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court upholding sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. Read the reported judgment
The sequence is important. The Federal High Court had upheld the provisions. The Court of Appeal subsequently struck them down. The Supreme Court has now reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the legal validity of the provisions.
The decision is consequently significant for the 2027 elections and for the continuing development of Nigerian electoral jurisprudence on the relationship between political-party autonomy and statutory regulation.
The constitutional question
The dispute concerned the extent to which the National Assembly may regulate the internal affairs of political parties.
Section 221 of the Constitution provides:
"No association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate at an election."
More importantly, section 228 expressly empowers the National Assembly to make laws providing guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties, including laws regulating party primaries, congresses and conventions.
The Supreme Court's restoration of the disputed provisions therefore confirms their continued operation within the constitutional framework.
Membership registers and party primaries
Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act 2026 requires a political party to make its membership register available to INEC not later than 21 days before the party primaries, congresses or conventions.
The provisions restored by the Supreme Court provide:
Section 77(5): "Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions."
Section 77(6): "A political party shall not use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission."
Section 77(7): "A party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for that election."
These provisions are now legally operative following the Supreme Court's reversal of the Court of Appeal.
Their effect is substantial. A party's membership register is no longer merely an internal administrative record. It forms part of the statutory framework governing participation in its electoral processes.
A person whose name is not on the register submitted to INEC cannot simply be introduced into the process through another internal register.
Likewise, failure by a political party to submit the register within the statutory timeframe may affect its ability to field a candidate in the election concerned.
Direct primaries or consensus
Section 84(2), whose validity has also been restored, provides:
"The procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct primaries or consensus."
The provision therefore establishes direct primaries or consensus as the statutory methods of nomination under the 2026 Act.
The Act also regulates consensus. Section 87(1) requires a party adopting a consensus candidate to obtain the written consent of all cleared aspirants, indicating their voluntary withdrawal and endorsement of the consensus candidate.
Where that consent cannot be obtained, section 87(2) requires the party to revert to direct primaries.
Consensus under the new Act is therefore not simply a political description. It has statutory requirements.
Party autonomy remains, but it operates within the law
The Supreme Court's decision does not abolish the recognised autonomy of political parties.
Nigerian electoral jurisprudence has consistently recognised the considerable discretion of political parties in choosing their candidates. Authorities including Onuoha v Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, PDP v Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85 and Shinkafi v Yari (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 340 remain relevant to that principle.
The important distinction is between political discretion and statutory compliance.
A political party may determine its political preferences and choose whom it wishes to sponsor. But where the Electoral Act prescribes how that choice must be made, the party must comply with those statutory requirements.
The description of a dispute as an "internal party matter" therefore cannot, by itself, displace an express provision of the Electoral Act.
What this means for 2027
The Supreme Court's restoration of sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) has immediate practical consequences for political parties and aspirants.
Political parties should ensure that:
- their membership registers are accurate and properly maintained;
- the prescribed register is submitted to INEC within the statutory timeframe;
- the same register is used for the relevant primary;
- candidate nomination is conducted through direct primaries or a legally compliant consensus process;
- consensus candidates have the required written consents; and
- all statutory notices and procedural requirements relating to congresses, conventions and primaries are observed.
For aspirants, compliance begins well before election day. Membership status, participation in the primary and the procedure through which a candidate emerges may all become material in subsequent electoral litigation.
A developing jurisprudential boundary
The significance of the decision extends beyond the immediate parties.
The Court of Appeal had invalidated the disputed provisions. The Supreme Court has now reversed that position and restored the provisions to legal effect.
The decision therefore reinforces an important boundary in electoral jurisprudence: political parties enjoy autonomy, but that autonomy is exercised within the constitutional and statutory framework governing elections.
The Electoral Act 2026 has moved certain aspects of internal party administration firmly into the realm of statutory compliance.
For the 2027 elections, the consequence is clear. The legal scrutiny of an election may begin long before votes are cast—at the point where a political party compiles its membership register, conducts its primary and produces the candidate who will eventually appear on the ballot.
The integrity of the ballot begins with the integrity of the process that produces it.
Lex Firma LP
The law. The strategy. The difference.
This article is general commentary, not legal advice. Speak to our team about how it applies to your circumstances.
CONTACT US →
