The 24 September Supreme Court ruling on Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 has finally settled the controversy over political parties’ autonomy in relation to membership registers and internal electoral processes, returning strict statutory discipline to Nigeria’s candidate nomination system.
The apex court set aside the 16 July 2026 judgement of the Court of Appeal, which had voided several restrictive sections of the Electoral Act as unconstitutional, and fully restored the statutory requirements for candidate nominations and party primary processes. By overturning the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court firmly re-established the mandatory requirement for parties to submit verified membership registers to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days prior to any primary, congress or convention. Only individuals whose names were included in that submitted register are eligible to vote or contest.
Legal experts say the judgement does not execute automatic disqualifications or issue sweeping orders against candidates already published by INEC, but its operational impact is immediate and far-reaching. It creates a potent legal threshold for aggrieved aspirants and opposition strategists, exposing politically sensitive nominations to high-stakes judicial challenges.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former Second National Vice-President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Dr Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN, said the ruling had validated the National Assembly’s framework and strengthened INEC’s guidelines. According to him, the implications are far-reaching for aspirants, particularly those who seek to join a party shortly before its primary.
Ubani said: “The Supreme Court has finally laid to rest the issue of party autonomy. If you want to run for an election or be a voter, your name must be in the electronic register of the political party. The law says they must submit that register 21 days before your primary, convention or congress. If you don’t do that, of course your party will be excluded from having a candidate for the election.”
He explained that the National Assembly, through the Electoral Act, had established the legal framework governing party membership and nomination, whilst INEC subsequently issued guidelines to implement the statutory requirements. By upholding the relevant provisions, the Supreme Court has also strengthened the legal basis for INEC’s guidelines.
A party, he said, cannot subsequently rely on a different membership register from the one submitted to INEC within the stipulated period.
He noted that Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act provides a legal avenue for an aspirant to challenge non-compliance with the law and INEC’s guidelines.
“Subsection (6) says you cannot use another register other than the one you have submitted earlier. So, if at the end of the day the party chooses to use another register different from the one it submitted, that again becomes an issue for which an aspirant can go to court under Section 84(2) to say this man has not complied with the Act itself or the guideline of INEC,” he said.
Ubani explained that the provision represented a significant departure from the 2010 Electoral Act, which did not contain a comparable penalty for failure to submit membership registers. He recalled allegations involving some political parties during the 2023 elections over failure to submit their registers to INEC, saying the 2022 amendment introduced consequences for such non-compliance.
“Under the 2022 Act, they made that amendment and took care of it. There are consequences if you fail to submit your register prior to your congress, convention or primary election. So it has implications,” he said.
On whether INEC can now unilaterally remove already-published candidates, Ubani cautioned that the judgement is not self-executing.
“I don’t think that judgement itself is self-executing. I don’t think INEC will now begin to look into any register, especially for those names that have been published, and say, ‘Remove this name.’ INEC on its own cannot, because that will be an exercise of judicial function. It’s only the judiciary that has that right. It’s only an aspirant who has locus standi that can go to court and say this person did not comply, his name is not in the register,” he stated.
According to him, pre-election disputes are subject to statutory time limits. “But of course, remember that 14 days must have elapsed. So if you want to take it now as a pre-election issue, you are statutorily barred, unless the matter is already pending,” he added.
On the growing practice of late defections, Ubani maintained the ruling could make such movements more difficult, because a prospective aspirant’s name must appear on the register submitted 21 days before a primary.
“That was the reason for this enactment by the National Assembly. It was there initially, but there were no consequences. But that can no longer happen in the light of this particular provision that says your name must be in the register, and that name must have been submitted 21 days before the primaries. So, if your name is not in the register, of course it becomes an issue for which any aspirant can challenge,” he said.
He clarified that the responsibility for compiling and maintaining membership records rests with parties, not INEC.
“Not INEC. It is the party. The party will take your name, your address, your gender and some other requirements. Address is very key, your name is very key, your gender and your state. Those are the requirements. So it is the party that keeps the record and then submits,” he clarified.
Late defection now impossible
Lagos-based human rights lawyer, Kabiru Akingbolu, said the judgement had effectively closed the door on late defections by politicians seeking to contest the same elective position on another platform. He argued: “The judgement has made it impossible for people to cross from one party to another at the dying stage or do a primary in Party A and move to another political party to contest for the same office and get the ticket. There can be a kind of arrangement between a placeholder or somebody who is not a strong candidate and say, ‘Oh, I have withdrawn,’ since the Electoral Act allows you to withdraw. But with this judgement, such an arrangement becomes difficult.”
He explained that the timing for submission of candidates’ names and the legal requirements governing party membership would now make late movement practically impossible.
He, however, noted the immediate impact on the 2026 electoral cycle and the 2027 general elections may be limited because the relevant primaries had already been concluded and the 14-day window for pre-election matters had lapsed in many cases.
“The judgement will not change so much in this 2026 election or 2027 election because you have just seven days and 14 days to file your pre-election matter, and the primaries for all the political parties had lapsed,” he said.
0 Comments