The Supreme Court of Nigeria has made a landmark judgment that switching parties after losing primaries is now fatal. For decades, Nigerian politicians have been known to switch parties after losing primaries, only to secure a consensus ticket with another party. However, the Supreme Court's judgment has firmly closed this door. According to the court's ruling, a late defector's name cannot legally exist on the receiving party's pre-submitted database.
The judgment was based on Section 77(6) of the Electoral Act, which states that a political party cannot modify or update its register to accommodate a new arrival. The court held that while constitutional qualifications govern personal eligibility, Section 228(a) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to enact laws regulating political party execution, internal administration, and candidate sponsorship. This means that Section 77 does not add to personal qualifications but regulates party sponsorship.
The Supreme Court's judgment set aside the Court of Appeal's ruling, which had earlier struck down Section 77. The Court of Appeal had reasoned that Section 77 created extra-constitutional eligibility criteria beyond the personal qualifications listed in Sections 65, 106, 131, and 177 of the 1999 Constitution. However, the Supreme Court's judgment has upheld Section 77, making it a binding law.
The operational consequences for aggrieved candidates jumping ship and the political platforms accommodating them are severe. Any candidate who lost a primary in one party, defected to another party, and secured a consensus ticket without appearing on the receiving party's pre-submitted Section 77 register faces total judicial disqualification. This means that such a candidate will not be eligible to contest in the general election.
Furthermore, Section 115 of the Electoral Act 2026 explicitly criminalizes dual party membership and signing nomination papers for multiple platforms during the same election cycle. This exposes defectors to heavy fines and imprisonment. Additionally, votes cast in a general election for a candidate who was invalidly nominated are legally classified as "wasted votes," with victory automatically awarded to the runner-up who met all statutory conditions.
The judgment also implies that political parties and candidates who engaged in post-primary cross-carpeting while relying on the appellate ruling acted at their own risk. The doctrine of reversal ex tunc (from the beginning) applies, making the Court of Appeal's decision erroneous ab initio. This means that any political party or candidate who relied on the Court of Appeal's ruling did so at their own peril.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court's ruling establishes an era of mandatory statutory discipline in Nigerian democracy. Political parties retain the right to nominate candidates, but that privilege must be exercised strictly within Parliament's statutory framework. Ignoring the 21-day digital register mandate transforms electoral tickets into legal nullities. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for Nigerian politics, particularly in the run-up to future elections.
Key points
- The Supreme Court's judgment upholds Section 77(6) of the Electoral Act, making it illegal for politicians to switch parties after losing primaries.
