By IROYIN YORUBA TELEVISION
Nigeria's Supreme Court has restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates, overturning an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had invalidated parts of the law.
The judgment was delivered on Thursday, September 24, 2026, by a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice Adamu Jauro.
The decision followed an appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission over a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on July 16, 2026, in a case initiated by the Zenith Labour Party.
The dispute concerns provisions that directly affect how political parties maintain their membership records and select candidates for elective positions ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The Supreme Court held that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act do not conflict with the 1999 Constitution and consequently set aside the Court of Appeal judgment. The apex court also awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party.
The ruling restores the position that had earlier been reached by the Federal High Court in Abuja, which dismissed the party's constitutional challenge in May.
WHAT THE DISPUTE WAS ABOUT
The case centred on Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act 2026.
Section 77 establishes requirements for political parties to maintain membership registers. Under the law, a registered political party must maintain a digital register containing information about its members, including their names, sex, date of birth, address, state, local government area, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number and photograph.
The law also requires political parties to make their membership registers available to the electoral commission at least 21 days before party primaries, congresses or conventions.
More importantly for party elections, Section 77 provides that only people whose names appear in the submitted register are eligible to vote or be voted for at party primaries, congresses and conventions.
The law further provides that a political party cannot use a different membership register for its primaries, congresses or conventions.
A party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period is also barred from fielding a candidate for the relevant election.
These provisions became contentious because the Zenith Labour Party argued that the legislation went beyond the permissible role of the electoral commission and interfered with the constitutional rights and internal affairs of political parties.
The party's legal challenge eventually moved through three levels of the judicial system.
HOW THE CASE MOVED THROUGH THE COURTS
The original case was filed by the Zenith Labour Party at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The party challenged Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing that the provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution.
Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court dismissed the challenge on May 5, 2026.
The party subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
On July 16, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and voided provisions concerning political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
That judgment created uncertainty over the rules that political parties and the electoral commission would be expected to apply in the preparation for the 2027 elections.
The electoral commission then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The apex court heard arguments from the parties on September 16 and reserved judgment.
One week later, on September 24, the Supreme Court delivered its decision.
The seven-member panel allowed the electoral commission's appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal's decision.
WHAT SECTION 84 MEANS FOR PARTY NOMINATION
Another important part of the case concerns Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act.
The provision states that the procedure for political parties to nominate candidates for elective positions is through direct primaries or consensus.
Under the direct-primary system, eligible party members participate directly in selecting a candidate.
The consensus route operates differently. The Electoral Act requires a political party adopting a consensus candidate to obtain the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the contest and endorsement of the consensus candidate.
If a party cannot obtain the required consent from all cleared aspirants, the law provides for a return to direct primaries.
A special convention or nomination congress is also required to ratify the choice of a consensus candidate.
The Supreme Court's decision therefore leaves these statutory nomination procedures in force.
Political parties preparing for future primaries will have to organise their processes within the framework established by the 2026 Electoral Act.
The law also provides that party primaries are to be monitored by the electoral commission.
WHY THE MEMBERSHIP REGISTER MATTERS
The membership-register provisions have practical consequences for party primaries.
By linking participation in primaries and conventions to the official register submitted to the electoral commission, the law creates a formal record of the people who are eligible to participate in internal party elections.
This means political parties cannot simply rely on a different list when conducting their primaries after submitting their official register.
The requirement also places an administrative responsibility on parties to keep their membership information up to date and submit the required register within the statutory period.
For aspirants, the rules make membership records an important part of the nomination process.
A person whose name is absent from the relevant register could face difficulties participating in a party primary, depending on the circumstances and applicable procedures.
For political parties, failure to meet the statutory requirement can have more serious consequences because the law provides that a party that does not submit its membership register within the stipulated period will not be eligible to field a candidate for the election concerned.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 2027 ELECTION PROCESS
The Supreme Court's decision comes as political parties prepare for the 2027 general elections.
The Independent National Electoral Commission's official election calendar currently lists January 16, 2027, for the presidential and National Assembly elections, while governorship and State House of Assembly elections are scheduled for February 6, 2027.
That timetable means political parties are already entering a period in which internal organisation, membership records and candidate-selection procedures are becoming increasingly important.
The Supreme Court decision removes the uncertainty created by the Court of Appeal's earlier ruling over the specific provisions challenged in the case.
Political parties will now have to work with the provisions as interpreted and upheld by the apex court.
The ruling does not, however, resolve every possible dispute that could arise from party primaries.
The Electoral Act itself provides a route for an aspirant who believes that the law or a party's guidelines were not followed during the selection or nomination of a candidate to seek redress at the Federal High Court.
The law also states that where a court finds that a political party failed to comply with its statutory obligations during its primaries, the party's candidate for the affected election should not be included in the election for that position.
This means compliance with the law can remain a significant issue even after the Supreme Court's latest ruling.
OTHER PARTY CASES ALSO DECIDED
The Supreme Court also dealt with separate appeals involving the Social Democratic Party and the Youth Party.
The Social Democratic Party's appeal against the electoral commission was dismissed after the court considered the matter on its merits.
In the Youth Party case, the Supreme Court upheld a preliminary objection by the electoral commission and struck out the appeal after finding that it had been filed one day outside the prescribed period.
These decisions form part of the wider series of legal disputes surrounding the interpretation and implementation of the Electoral Act 2026 as parties prepare for the next general elections.
WHAT POLITICAL PARTIES NOW FACE
The practical task for political parties is to ensure that their internal processes comply with the provisions that have now been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Membership records must be properly maintained, the required register must be submitted within the prescribed period, and party primaries must follow the nomination framework established by the law.
Parties choosing consensus nominations must also ensure that the required written consent is obtained from all cleared aspirants before relying on that procedure.
Where direct primaries are used, the exercise must be conducted in accordance with the relevant law and the party's applicable guidelines.
These requirements place greater importance on documentation and procedural compliance. Disputes over who was eligible to participate, whether a membership register was properly submitted or whether the nomination process followed the law could still become matters for judicial review.
For aspirants and party members, the decision provides a clearer legal position on the disputed provisions, but it also means that the statutory requirements cannot simply be ignored during internal party activities.
A DECISION WITH ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES
The Supreme Court's ruling does not determine which political party or candidate will succeed in the 2027 elections. Instead, it settles an important legal question about the rules under which political parties must organise their membership registers and nominate candidates.
The judgment also illustrates the role of the courts in resolving disputes over electoral legislation before the general election takes place.
The case began with a constitutional challenge, moved through the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal, and ultimately reached the country's highest court.
With the Supreme Court now setting aside the Court of Appeal judgment, the provisions concerning party membership registers and candidate nomination remain part of the legal framework governing the 2027 electoral process.
Political parties, aspirants and election officials will now have to organise their activities with the Supreme Court's interpretation in mind.
The next stage will be the implementation of the rules as parties move closer to their nomination activities and the wider 2027 election timetable.
For voters, the ruling is significant mainly because the internal processes used by political parties determine the candidates who eventually appear on the ballot.
How parties maintain their membership records, conduct primaries and select candidates will therefore form an important part of the electoral process leading to the 2027 polls.
The Supreme Court's decision has now provided the legal position on the specific provisions challenged in the case, bringing the dispute over Sections 77 and 84 to an end at the level of the country's highest court.