On 24 September 2026 a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, unanimously allowed an appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission and restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The decision set aside a Court of Appeal judgment that had declared those provisions unconstitutional and reinstated the earlier Federal High Court ruling that had dismissed the challenge. The practical effect is that the disputed sections remain valid and binding parts of the electoral framework ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The Provisions That Were Restored
Section 77(5) provides that only members whose names appear in the membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention may participate in that exercise.
Section 77(6) requires a political party to use the membership register it submitted to INEC for its primaries, congresses and conventions. A party cannot switch to a different list for the actual nomination event.
Section 77(7) states that a party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period cannot field a candidate in the relevant election.
Section 84(2) provides that political parties shall nominate candidates through direct primaries or by consensus.
These four subsections were the specific targets of the legal challenge. The Supreme Court held that they are not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, particularly the provisions governing the existence and internal organisation of political parties.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
The Zenith Labour Party had approached the Federal High Court in Abuja arguing that the sections interfered with the constitutional autonomy of political parties to manage their internal affairs, including candidate selection. The party contended that the requirements conflicted with Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution. The Federal High Court dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeal later allowed the party’s appeal in part and voided the four subsections. INEC then appealed to the Supreme Court. Related appeals by other parties were also before the apex court and were resolved against the challengers on the same reasoning. The Supreme Court awarded costs of ₦2 million against the Zenith Labour Party.
What the Supreme Court Actually Decided
The apex court did not create new law. It determined that the National Assembly had the power to enact the challenged provisions and that those provisions do not violate the Constitution on the grounds advanced by the challengers. By restoring the Federal High Court judgment, the Supreme Court confirmed that parties must submit their membership registers within the stipulated time, must use those registers for nomination exercises, face consequences for non-compliance, and must nominate candidates through the methods set out in Section 84(2).
The judgment does not automatically invalidate primaries or nominations already concluded before the decision. That residual question of retrospective application has been left for practical handling by INEC and, if necessary, further litigation. The core constitutional validity of the four subsections, however, is now settled.
Why the Decision Matters
Membership-register rules aim to reduce the practice of producing sudden or unverifiable lists of delegates or voters at the point of nomination. By tying participation to a register lodged with INEC in advance, the law seeks greater transparency and predictability. The restoration of Section 84(2) reaffirms that the statutory options for candidate nomination are direct primaries or consensus, limiting the scope for other methods that had previously generated disputes.
For political parties the immediate practical requirement is compliance: registers must be submitted on time and used as the basis for participation. Failure carries the statutory consequence that the party may be unable to field candidates. For INEC the decision removes the uncertainty created by the Court of Appeal ruling and restores a clearer regulatory framework for monitoring nomination processes.
Questions Still Open
Although the constitutional status of the sections is resolved, implementation details remain. Parties that conducted primaries under the temporary legal uncertainty created by the Court of Appeal decision may face questions about the status of those exercises. INEC has indicated it is reviewing the certified judgment and receiving representations from parties and aspirants. Further clarification or litigation on transitional issues is possible before the 2027 elections.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is therefore both definitive on validity and incomplete on every practical consequence. The law is restored; the administrative and political work of applying it consistently now begins.
What aspects of the membership-register or nomination rules do you think will prove most consequential in the run-up to 2027? Share your assessment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did the Supreme Court restore?
Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. These deal with the submission and use of party membership registers and the methods of candidate nomination.
Did the Court create new rules?
No. It held that the existing statutory provisions are constitutional and therefore remain in force.
What do the restored sections require of parties?
Parties must submit membership registers to INEC within the prescribed time, use only those registers for primaries, congresses and conventions, and nominate candidates by direct primary or consensus. Non-submission of the register can bar a party from fielding candidates.
Does the judgment cancel primaries already held?
The Supreme Court did not automatically invalidate concluded nominations. The practical effect on earlier exercises remains a matter for INEC guidance and possible further legal determination.
Who brought the original challenge?
The Zenith Labour Party challenged the provisions at the Federal High Court. After the Court of Appeal sided with the party in part, INEC appealed successfully to the Supreme Court.
Why does the decision matter for 2027?
It removes constitutional uncertainty over key rules governing who can participate in party nomination exercises and how candidates must be chosen, giving parties and INEC a clearer legal baseline.
Reference links:
https://timesng.com.ng/2026/09/supreme-court-restores-sections-775-6-7-and-842-of-electoral-act-questions-remain-over-application-to-primaries-already-concluded/
https://theguardian.com.ng/2027-polls-scourt-allows-inecs-appeal-restores-voided-portions-of-electoral-act/
https://thenigerialawyer.com/usupreme-court-has-affirmed-sections-775-7-of-electoral-act-2026-inec-reviews-judgment-on-party-registers-candidate-nominations/
https://legalideasforum.com/key-takeaways-supreme-court-judgment-on-electoral-act-2026-sections-77-84.html
https://allafrica.com/stories/202609250197.html
https://www.thetimes.com.ng/2026/09/supreme-court-gives-judgment-on-inecs-2026-electoral-act/
Was this article helpful?
