INEC, ZLP Suit: Supreme Court Restores Strict Party Register Rules, Sets Fresh Legal Ground For 2027 Primaries

Reloaded News Desk

The Supreme Court has restored key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political party membership registers and candidate nomination, potentially creating a new compliance test for political parties and aspirants ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In a unanimous decision delivered on Thursday by a seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro, the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and set aside the Abuja Court of Appeal judgment which had invalidated the disputed provisions.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. It also upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, which had earlier dismissed the challenge brought by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

The decision is significant because the provisions regulate who may participate in party primaries, which membership register parties must use and the methods through which candidates may be nominated for elections.

What Section 77 Now Means

Section 77(2) of the Electoral Act requires every registered political party to maintain a digital membership register containing specified information, including a member’s name, address, State, Local Government, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number and photograph.

Under Section 77(4), the register must be made available to INEC not later than 21 days before the date fixed for the party’s primaries, congresses or conventions.

Section 77(5) then provides that only members whose names are contained in that register are eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.

Section 77(6) prohibits a party from using a different register for its primaries, congresses or conventions.

Section 77(7) goes further by providing that a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period will not be eligible to field a candidate for that election.

The Supreme Court’s decision means those requirements remain legally operative after the Court of Appeal had previously struck them down.

What This Means For Party Primaries

The immediate implication is that political parties cannot simply conduct a primary using an internal membership list that differs from the register submitted to INEC.

An aspirant whose name is not contained in the applicable register could face a legal challenge over eligibility to vote or be voted for at that party’s primary.

But this requires an important distinction.

The law does not say that a Nigerian automatically ceases to be a member of a political party merely because his or her name was absent from a particular register.

Rather, Section 77(5) specifically determines eligibility to participate in the party’s primary, congress or convention based on the register submitted to INEC for that exercise.

The register is therefore not simply an administrative document. It can become central evidence in disputes over the validity of a party’s internal electoral process.

Does Participating In More Than One Primary Automatically Disqualify An Aspirant?

This is where some interpretations circulating after the judgment require caution.

The Electoral Act does not expressly state that participation alone in more than one party primary automatically disqualifies an aspirant from the 2027 election.

Indeed, the Act separately addresses multiple nomination.

Section 35 provides that where a candidate knowingly allows himself or herself to be nominated by more than one political party, or in more than one constituency, the nomination is void.

That is different from simply participating in a primary.

A person may therefore have participated in an internal nomination process without necessarily being the candidate formally nominated by that party.

The legal distinction between participating in a primary and being nominated as a candidate could consequently become important in future litigation.

A recent legal analysis of the issue also points to this distinction, noting that the Electoral Act expressly addresses multiple nomination rather than creating a blanket prohibition on participation in more than one primary.

Therefore, the statement that “everyone who participated in more than one primary is automatically disqualified” should not be presented as the direct holding of Thursday’s Supreme Court judgment without a specific passage from the judgment establishing that proposition.

Direct Primaries Or Consensus

The Supreme Court also restored Section 84(2).

That provision states that political parties shall nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus.

Section 84(1) requires parties seeking to nominate candidates to hold primaries, which are to be monitored by INEC.

For consensus nominations, Section 87 requires the written consent of all cleared aspirants, confirming their voluntary withdrawal from the contest and endorsement of the consensus candidate.

Where the party cannot secure that consent, the Act provides for a return to direct primaries.

This means political parties preparing for 2027 must pay close attention not only to who participates in their nomination processes but also to how those processes are documented and conducted.

A New Compliance Pressure On Political Parties

The ruling potentially places considerable importance on the documentary trail surrounding every primary.

Parties will have to be able to demonstrate that:

• the relevant membership register was maintained;
• the register was submitted to INEC within the statutory period;
• the register used at the primary was the same register submitted to INEC;
• persons voting or being voted for were eligible under the applicable register;
• the prescribed nomination procedure was followed; and
• where consensus was used, the required written consent was obtained.

The Electoral Act also requires parties to give INEC at least 21 days’ notice of conventions, congresses and meetings for specified purposes, while INEC is empowered to monitor party activities. Failure by a party to give the required notice can render the relevant primary, convention, congress or conference invalid.

What It Could Mean For 2027

The judgment does not itself invalidate all existing 2027 primaries or automatically disqualify named aspirants.

Its significance is that the statutory rules governing the validity of those processes are now back in force.

That creates potential grounds for pre-election litigation where an aspirant, political party or rival candidate alleges that the party failed to comply with the membership-register or nomination requirements.

For politicians who moved between parties during the nomination season, the legal questions could become particularly fact-specific.

Courts may have to examine the precise dates of party membership, the applicable membership register, the date of the relevant primary, whether the individual was merely an aspirant or was actually nominated, and whether any subsequent nomination complied with the Electoral Act.

The same applies to parties that conducted multiple nomination exercises or changed their candidates.

The Act provides that a political party generally cannot substitute a candidate already submitted to INEC except in specified circumstances, including death or withdrawal, in which case another primary may be required.

The Bigger Issue

The dispute that reached the Supreme Court began when the Zenith Labour Party challenged the constitutionality of the provisions, arguing that they interfered with political parties’ constitutional authority over their internal affairs.

The Federal High Court rejected that challenge on May 5.

The Court of Appeal later allowed ZLP’s appeal in part and voided the disputed provisions, prompting INEC to approach the Supreme Court.

The apex court has now reversed that position and restored the statutory framework.

The practical message for Nigeria’s political parties ahead of 2027 is therefore clear: membership registers, primary procedures, INEC notification and nomination documentation are no longer peripheral administrative matters. They can become central to whether a party’s candidate survives a legal challenge.

The ruling does not, however, amount to a blanket declaration that every politician who participated in more than one primary is automatically disqualified.

For each disputed candidacy, the relevant facts and the specific provisions of the Electoral Act will still matter.

Category: Politics / 2027 Elections / Law

#Hashtags:

Reloaded News — NEWS THAT INFORMS. MEDIA THAT TRANSFORMS