On September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Nigeria made a significant ruling in the dispute concerning certain sections of the Electoral Act 2026. The court allowed the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment, effectively restoring the Federal High Court's decision. This ruling has far-reaching implications for the country's electoral process, particularly in regards to the regulation of internal party affairs.
The Supreme Court's seven-member panel, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, upheld Sections 77(5), (6), and (7), as well as Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, declaring them not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. These provisions relate to the membership register of political parties, its use in congresses, conventions, and primaries, and the methods of nominating candidates. The court's decision was based on the constitutional power granted to the National Assembly to make laws providing guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties.
Section 228(a) of the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to regulate the conduct of party primaries, congresses, and conventions. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the scope of this constitutional power in the case of President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor v National Assembly & Ors (2022). The court's present judgment must be understood within this constitutional architecture, which balances the autonomy of political parties with the need for legislative regulation.
The Supreme Court's decision has significant implications for political parties and aspirants. The court has determined that the statutory framework enacted by the National Assembly is not unconstitutional on the grounds presented in the litigation. Political parties must therefore examine their nomination procedures carefully and ensure that their internal processes conform to the Electoral Act. The principle is clear: political parties are free to conduct their affairs within the law, but not outside it.
The controversy has now moved from interpretation to compliance, with political parties and aspirants urged to take the judgment seriously and without partisan bias. The Supreme Court's decision does not prevent lawful administrative corrections or updates permitted by the Electoral Act or valid regulations. However, a statutory requirement cannot be reduced to political convenience. Political parties must treat the membership register as a document that must be regarded, not disregarded whenever it becomes inconvenient.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has long recognized that not every disagreement within a political party is justiciable. However, where the legislature has expressly regulated an aspect of the electoral process, compliance with that statutory regime is a matter of law. The court's decision in PDP v Lawal (2023) recognized that an allegation of non-compliance with statutory requirements governing the nomination process could properly engage the courts' jurisdiction.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court's judgment serves as a reminder that autonomy is not immunity from the law. Political parties must review their membership register, congress and convention arrangements, primary procedures, nomination guidelines, and relevant electoral timetable against the Electoral Act as it now stands. Aspirants should also do the same, ensuring that their processes are lawful and not leaving the legality of the process to chance.
Key points
- The Supreme Court upholds sections of the Electoral Act 2026, affirming the National Assembly's power to regulate internal party affairs.
- The court's decision has significant implications for political parties and aspirants, who must ensure their internal processes conform to the Electoral Act.
- The judgment serves as a reminder that autonomy is not immunity from the law, and political parties must operate within the bounds of the law.
