The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling that could significantly reshape the conduct of political party primaries and candidate nominations in Nigeria, reaffirming strict statutory requirements on party membership registers and internal electoral processes.
The September 24, 2026, judgment on Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 overturned the July 16 decision of the Court of Appeal, which had declared several restrictive provisions of the Electoral Act unconstitutional.
With the Supreme Court restoring the disputed provisions, political parties are now required to comply with statutory rules governing membership registers and candidate nomination processes, particularly the requirement to submit verified membership registers to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention.
Under the restored provisions, only persons whose names appear on the membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period are eligible to participate in the relevant party electoral process.
More Read
The ruling has therefore raised fresh legal questions over party primaries conducted while the Court of Appeal judgment was in force, as well as the implications for politicians who defect from one political party to another shortly before an election.
Legal experts, however, stressed that the Supreme Court judgment does not automatically invalidate candidates already published by INEC.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former Second National Vice-President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Dr Monday Onyekachi Ubani, said the judgment had finally settled the controversy surrounding party autonomy in relation to membership registers.
More Read
According to Ubani, anyone seeking to contest an election or participate as a voter in a party primary must have his or her name properly captured in the party’s electronic membership register.
He explained that the law requires political parties to submit the register to INEC 21 days before their primary, convention or congress.
Ubani also warned that a political party cannot submit one membership register to INEC and subsequently rely on a different register during its internal electoral process.
He pointed to Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act as providing a legal avenue for an aggrieved aspirant to challenge non-compliance with the law and INEC guidelines.
The senior lawyer noted that the current framework represents a significant development compared with the 2010 Electoral Act, which did not impose comparable consequences for failure to submit party membership registers.
INEC Cannot Unilaterally Remove Candidates
Despite the far-reaching implications of the ruling, Ubani cautioned that the judgment is not self-executing.
He said INEC cannot simply begin removing already-published candidates from its portal based solely on its interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment.
According to him, such an action would amount to the exercise of judicial powers, which belongs to the courts.
He explained that an aspirant with the legal standing to challenge a nomination would have to approach the appropriate court and establish that the candidate or party failed to comply with the Electoral Act.
The lawyer further pointed out that pre-election disputes are governed by strict statutory timelines, meaning that in many cases, the opportunity to challenge a nomination may already have expired unless a matter is pending before the court.
Late Defections Under Fresh Pressure
The judgment has also triggered concerns over the growing practice of politicians defecting to other political parties shortly before primaries or elections.
Lagos-based human rights lawyer, Kabiru Akingbolu, said the Supreme Court decision could make such late political movements considerably more difficult.
He argued that a politician who seeks to move from one party to another at the last stage of an electoral process may find it difficult to satisfy the statutory membership requirements.
Akingbolu said the requirement that a candidate’s name must appear on the membership register submitted to INEC 21 days before a primary creates a significant legal barrier against late movements between political parties.
He, however, noted that the immediate impact of the judgment on the current electoral cycle could be limited because many party primaries had already been concluded and statutory windows for filing pre-election cases had expired.
Judgment Not Retrospective, Lawyer Explains
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr Abiodun Layonu, cautioned against describing the Supreme Court judgment as giving the Electoral Act retrospective effect.
Layonu explained that legislation generally does not operate retrospectively unless the law expressly provides otherwise and subject to constitutional limitations.
He said the Supreme Court’s decision should instead be understood as an authoritative judicial affirmation that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act were legally valid.
According to him, the provisions already existed in the law before the Supreme Court ruling.
The apex court therefore did not create a new legal requirement but determined the constitutional validity and legal status of provisions that were already contained in the Electoral Act.
Layonu consequently warned against assuming that an earlier Court of Appeal judgment could automatically be relied upon by a candidate seeking to escape the consequences of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.
Lawyers Urge Strict Compliance
Human rights lawyer Ige Asemudara also described the ruling as a significant reinforcement of compliance with Nigeria’s electoral laws.
Asemudara said political parties and aspirants must pay closer attention to the statutory requirements governing party membership and participation in primaries.
He maintained that individuals whose names were not contained in a party’s membership register within the legally prescribed period should not expect to participate in the party’s primary process.
He further argued that the Supreme Court did not introduce a new law but interpreted existing provisions of the Electoral Act and determined their constitutional validity.
Potential Tribunal Battles Ahead
The major uncertainty surrounding the ruling may now shift to the courts and election tribunals.
Several political parties conducted congresses and primaries during the period when the Court of Appeal judgment had created uncertainty over the disputed provisions.
With the Supreme Court now restoring the requirements, opposition parties and rival aspirants are expected to closely examine membership registers, defection dates and nomination procedures in search of possible grounds for legal challenges.
However, the ability to mount such challenges will depend heavily on whether the relevant statutory deadlines were met.
Under Sections 29, 32 and 88 of the Electoral Act, a Federal High Court order arising from a valid pre-election suit is required in cases involving certain nomination-related challenges.
This means that although the Supreme Court ruling has restored strict statutory requirements, it does not automatically translate into the removal of candidates whose nominations have already been accepted or published by INEC.
For candidates whose tickets were obtained through controversial waivers or other disputed nomination arrangements, their positions could therefore depend on whether rival aspirants commenced legally valid challenges within the prescribed period.
A New Warning to Political Parties
The Supreme Court judgment has ultimately placed political parties on notice that electoral expediency cannot override statutory requirements.
While the ruling may not automatically unsettle every nomination conducted during the period of legal uncertainty, it has established a clearer framework for future party primaries.
Political parties will now have to pay greater attention to the preparation, verification and timely submission of membership registers, while aspirants will have stronger grounds to challenge nomination processes where statutory requirements are allegedly breached.
For politicians contemplating late defections, the message is equally significant: membership status, timing and compliance with the Electoral Act could determine whether a candidate is legally positioned to secure a party ticket.
The ruling therefore represents a major development in Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence, with its full political consequences likely to become clearer as courts and electoral stakeholders confront disputes arising from party primaries and nominations.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces a central principle of Nigeria’s electoral system — political parties may enjoy internal autonomy, but that autonomy remains subject to the requirements of the law.
