The Supreme Court has restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political party membership registers and the procedure for nominating candidates, setting aside an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal that declared the provisions unconstitutional.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/NBBSPIDEL.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, September 24, 2026, a seven-member panel of the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and reinstated Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The lead judgment was delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro.
The Supreme Court held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, thereby reversing the Court of Appeal’s July 16 judgment and restoring the May 5 decision of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which had dismissed the constitutional challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). The apex court also awarded ₦2 million costs against ZLP.
The judgment settles, at the Supreme Court level, a dispute that had raised questions over how far the Electoral Act may regulate political parties’ membership registers and candidate-selection procedures ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The case originated from a suit filed by ZLP at the Federal High Court in Abuja, marked FHC/ABJ/509/2026. The party challenged Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), arguing that they interfered with powers granted to political parties under the Constitution and unlawfully restricted their ability to manage their internal affairs and determine how candidates should emerge.
Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court dismissed the action on May 5, 2026. Dissatisfied, ZLP approached the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026.
On July 16, the Court of Appeal allowed the party’s appeal in part and struck down the four provisions. The appellate court held that they conflicted with Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution, which form part of the constitutional framework governing political parties and their sponsorship of candidates.
The three-member Court of Appeal panel was led by Justice Balkisu Bello Aliyu, while reports of the judgment identify Justice Eberechi Suzzette Nyesom-Wike as delivering the lead judgment. The appellate court’s position was essentially that ordinary legislation could not impose restrictions that were inconsistent with powers given to political parties by the Constitution.
INEC, however, rejected that interpretation and approached the Supreme Court in an appeal reported as SC/CR/495/2026, asking the apex court to overturn the judgment and restore the statutory requirements.
When the appeal came up on September 16, INEC, represented by Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, urged the Supreme Court to restore the affected provisions, while ZLP opposed the appeal and asked the court to preserve the Court of Appeal’s decision. The seven-member panel led by Justice Jauro subsequently reserved judgment.
Thursday’s judgment resolved the dispute in INEC’s favour.
One of the central provisions restored by the Supreme Court is Section 77(5), which provides that only persons whose names appear in the political party membership register submitted to INEC not later than 21 days before the date fixed for a primary, congress or convention are eligible to participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6) prohibits a political party from using a membership register other than the one submitted to INEC for its primaries, congresses and conventions.
Under Section 77(7), a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period is not eligible to field a candidate for the election.
The restored Section 84(2), meanwhile, provides that the procedure for nominating candidates for elective offices shall be by direct primaries or consensus.
ZLP’s argument throughout the litigation was that those requirements went beyond permissible electoral regulation and encroached on political parties’ constitutionally protected internal affairs.
The Court of Appeal agreed with that argument in July, holding that the disputed provisions were inconsistent with Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution. It also reasoned that statutory provisions could not introduce disqualifying conditions inconsistent with qualifications and disqualifications already set out in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has now rejected that conclusion and reinstated the Federal High Court’s position, with the practical effect that the disputed membership-register requirements and the statutory nomination methods under Section 84(2) are restored.
The decision is particularly significant for preparations for the 2027 general elections, because political parties must now take account of the reinstated statutory requirements when organising their membership registers, primaries, congresses and conventions and when selecting candidates.
The Court of Appeal’s July judgment had not removed the general obligation of political parties to maintain membership registers altogether. Rather, it invalidated the specific restrictions in Sections 77(5), (6) and (7), including the consequences attached to failing to submit or use the prescribed register. Those restrictions have now been restored by the Supreme Court.
Similarly, the appellate court had invalidated Section 84(2)’s restriction of nomination procedures to direct primaries or consensus. Thursday’s Supreme Court judgment reverses that position and restores the provision.
The litigation had generated considerable debate because it went to the relationship between the constitutional autonomy of political parties and the National Assembly’s power to prescribe rules governing elections through the Electoral Act.
With the Supreme Court’s judgment, INEC’s position that the statutory provisions should remain operative has prevailed in the ZLP case.
Reports from Thursday’s proceedings also indicate that the Supreme Court delivered judgments in two separate appeals involving the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Youth Party, dismissing those appeals against INEC. Those cases formed part of a cluster of litigation concerning INEC’s electoral framework, although they should not be confused with ZLP’s specific constitutional challenge to Sections 77(5)-(7) and 84(2).
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
