Fresh legal attention is turning to the practical effect of the Supreme Court judgment restoring four provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political-party membership registers and nomination procedures ahead of the 2027 general election.
The apex court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) after allowing an appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission against the Court of Appeal judgment that had invalidated the provisions.
LegalLinkz reported the judgment on September 26, noting that the provisions deal substantially with party membership registers and the procedure for conducting primaries and selecting candidates. (legallinkz.com)
The seven-member Supreme Court panel restored the earlier Federal High Court decision dismissing the constitutional challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party and awarded costs against the party.
What the restored provisions do
Sections 77(5), (6) and (7) deal with the membership registers political parties are required to maintain and submit for purposes connected with primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 84(2) regulates recognised methods for the nomination of candidates, including direct primaries and consensus. Nigerian Law Updates
The Court of Appeal had earlier held that the disputed provisions conflicted with constitutional provisions giving political parties control over their internal structures and sponsorship of candidates.
The Supreme Court reversed that position and restored the provisions.
Does the judgment automatically disqualify candidates?
No automatic disqualification of any named candidate followed merely from the restoration of the sections.
Whether a particular candidate complied with the restored requirements would depend on the facts surrounding the person’s membership, participation in the relevant primary, the party’s records and any properly instituted pre-election challenge. Nigerian Law Updates
That distinction is particularly important because political commentary following the judgment has focused on candidates who changed parties shortly before primaries or whose names were allegedly absent from membership registers submitted within prescribed periods.
Such commentary should not be confused with a judicial finding that any particular nomination has already been voided.
The Supreme Court decided the constitutional validity of the disputed statutory provisions. It did not, in that judgment alone, determine the validity of every primary election conducted while the Court of Appeal judgment was operative. LEGAL IDEAS FORUM
Completed primaries may generate fresh litigation
The more difficult question is how the restored provisions apply to primaries already concluded before the Supreme Court decision.
Legal analysts have noted that the full certified judgment remains important in answering some of the transitional questions now arising.
Future cases may therefore require courts to decide whether particular nominations complied with the restored provisions, whether a claimant has standing to challenge the process and whether the action was filed within the strict timeframe applicable to pre-election matters.
The judgment has effectively moved the debate from whether the statutory provisions are constitutional to how they operate in individual candidate-selection disputes.
For political parties, the safest immediate implication is clear: membership records, primary procedures and documentary compliance are likely to receive close judicial scrutiny as litigation over 2027 nominations increases.
Related Stories
READ MORE: Supreme Court Restores Electoral Act Rules on Primaries
READ MORE: Court Fixes November 19 for Yahaya Bello Kogi Central Ticket Dispute
