The Supreme Court of Nigeria's decision to validate key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has sparked debate among Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) on its implications for political parties, candidates, and actions already taken under the disputed provisions. The court's decision, delivered on September 24, 2026, upheld an appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. These provisions concern political party membership registers and procedures for nominating candidates for elective positions.
The Supreme Court's decision was made through a seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro, who declared that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. This decision set aside the July 16, 2026, judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had voided the provisions following a challenge by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court had thrown out ZLP's constitutional challenge in a judgment delivered on May 5, 2026.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Abiodun Layonu, explained that the Supreme Court's validation of the disputed provisions means that their legal validity has now been affirmed at the highest judicial level. According to Dr. Layonu, it would be inaccurate to describe the judgment as giving the Electoral Act retrospective effect, as the provisions were part of the Electoral Act from the time it was enacted. Instead, the Supreme Court determined the legal status of the provisions, meaning that conduct occurring after the enactment of the law could be subject to those provisions where applicable.
Another SAN, Mr. Francis Amobi Nzelu, viewed the apex court's judgment from the perspective of the changing relationship between political parties, candidates, INEC, and the electorate. Nzelu queried the continued relevance of the traditional position that political parties have the final say in determining their candidates, particularly in view of the statutory framework governing party primaries under the Electoral Act 2026. He suggested that the introduction of direct primaries had changed the character of the process.
Human rights crusader Ige Asemudara described the Supreme Court's decision as a development that would reinforce order and adherence to established electoral rules. Asemudara stated that persons who were not listed on the membership register of a political party within the statutory period should not seek to participate in the party's primary process. He referenced instances where aspirants dissatisfied with the outcome of primaries in one political party subsequently moved to another party and sought to contest under its platform.
The Supreme Court's decision has significant implications for political parties and candidates in Nigeria. According to Dr. Layonu, the earlier Court of Appeal judgment could not necessarily be relied upon by a candidate or political party seeking to avoid the consequences of the Supreme Court's subsequent pronouncement. The SAN stressed that he was not commenting on the merits or outcome of any particular individual case.
The Supreme Court's ruling has restored clarity regarding the relevance of party membership registers and the statutory requirements governing participation in party primaries. The decision is expected to have far-reaching consequences for the electoral process in Nigeria, and stakeholders are watching closely to see how it will be implemented.
Key points
- The Supreme Court's decision validates key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
- The ruling has significant implications for political parties and candidates in Nigeria.
- The decision restores clarity regarding party membership registers and statutory requirements governing participation in party primaries.
