The Supreme Court of Nigeria has delivered a judgment that has significant implications for the 2027 elections. On September 24, the court restored a disputed provision of the Electoral Act, which empowers the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to demand that political parties submit their registers 21 days before conducting primaries. This provision aims to prevent the practice of "jumpology," where politicians switch parties after losing primaries.
The judgment has caused a stir in the political landscape, with various parties expressing concerns about its implications. According to Liborous Oshoma, a lawyer and advocate of good governance, the judgment is not novel but has significant implications. Oshoma explained that the provision was aimed at preventing politicians from using political parties as a platform for fulfilling their ambitions, rather than serving the party's interests.
The Supreme Court's decision has given INEC the power to delist candidates whose names did not appear on their parties' registers before the conduct of primaries. INEC has stated that it will review the judgment and may seek an opinion from its legal department. Oshoma explained that the judgment means that INEC has the power to remove the names of candidates who did not meet the requirements, as their names were not on the register submitted to INEC.
The judgment has raised questions about its implications for parties that have already conducted their primaries while the provision was disrupted. Oshoma argued that INEC does not need another court order to remove the names of candidates who did not meet the requirements. He explained that if a candidate's name was not on the register ab initio, they had no ground to claim membership of a political party that contested an election monitored by INEC.
The judgment has also raised concerns about politicians who defect from one party to another shortly before seeking a new party's ticket. Oshoma argued that the issue of consensus is not included in this judgment, but the law requires that a candidate's name must be on the register as a contestant before they can be considered for consensus. He disagreed with lawyers who argued that the judgment does not apply to candidates whose names were already on the list.
INEC has stated that the first step is to ensure that a candidate's name is on the register as a contestant before they can be considered for consensus or direct primaries. Oshoma explained that the judgment is not a question of law being passed but an interpretation of the import of that section of the law. He argued that candidates who left their parties after the parties had submitted the register to INEC, with their names not being on the register, were not members of that political party.
The judgment has significant implications for the 2027 elections, as it empowers INEC to ensure that only candidates who meet the requirements are allowed to contest. Oshoma's interpretation of the judgment suggests that INEC has the power to enforce the provision and remove candidates who do not meet the requirements. The judgment is expected to have a significant impact on the political landscape, as parties and candidates adjust to the new requirements.
Key points
- The Supreme Court's judgment empowers INEC to delist candidates whose names did not appear on their parties' registers before the conduct of primaries.
