...How the Apex Court’s Decision is Reshaping Electoral Jurisprudence, Party Primaries and Candidate Nomination in Nigeria
By Prince Elom C. Aleke, Esq.,
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has once again placed itself at the centre of the continuing development of Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence with its recent decision in Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) v. Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), Appeal No. SC/CR/495/2026.
The judgment, delivered on 24 September 2026, concerns important provisions of the newly enacted Electoral Act 2026, particularly Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), dealing principally with political-party membership registers and the permissible methods of nominating candidates.
The decision comes at a particularly significant moment. Nigeria is already approaching the 2027 general elections, and the judgment provides important guidance to political parties, aspirants, candidates, INEC and election-law practitioners on the legal framework within which party primaries and candidate nomination must operate.
Reports of the judgment indicate that the seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Adamu Jauro, allowed INEC’s appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment and restored the decision of the Federal High Court which had dismissed the ZLP’s challenge. The Supreme Court reportedly held that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 were not inconsistent with the Constitution and awarded N2 million costs against ZLP.
The judgment therefore represents a significant development in the relationship between legislative regulation of political parties, constitutional rights of political association and the supervisory responsibilities of INEC.
The Journey to the Supreme Court
The controversy originated from an action filed by the Zenith Labour Party at the Federal High Court in Abuja, registered as FHC/ABJ/509/2026.
The ZLP challenged Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing, among other things, that the provisions interfered with the constitutional autonomy of political parties and were inconsistent with the constitutional framework governing political associations.
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar, dismissed the action on 5 May 2026.
The ZLP appealed to the Court of Appeal in CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026. On 16 July 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and invalidated the disputed provisions.
INEC subsequently approached the Supreme Court in SC/CR/495/2026.
Before the Supreme Court delivered judgment, the appeal had generated considerable interest because of its implications for the conduct of party primaries and the preparation of political parties for the 2027 elections. Reports published before the judgment confirmed that the Supreme Court had reserved judgment after hearing arguments from the parties.
The Supreme Court has now reversed the Court of Appeal's position.
What Sections 77 and 84 Mean for Political Parties
The significance of the decision can best be appreciated by examining the statutory provisions involved.
Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 establishes requirements concerning political-party membership registers.
The reported effect of subsections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) is that persons participating in a party primary, congress or convention must be traceable to the membership register submitted to INEC within the statutory period; a political party is required to use the submitted register for the relevant exercise; and failure to comply with the statutory register requirement may affect the party's eligibility to field a candidate.
Section 84(2), meanwhile, provides that the procedure for nominating candidates for elective offices shall be by direct primaries or consensus.
These provisions are important because they transform party membership records and nomination procedures from matters that may previously have been treated predominantly as internal party arrangements into matters carrying statutory consequences under the Electoral Act.
The Supreme Court's decision consequently establishes that compliance with these statutory procedures is not merely an optional administrative exercise.
Constitutional Autonomy of Political Parties versus Electoral Regulation
One of the most important jurisprudential questions arising from the case is the boundary between political-party autonomy and state regulation of elections.
Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution recognise and regulate the constitutional position of political parties. Political parties are indispensable institutions through which citizens participate in representative government.
However, political parties do not operate outside the electoral laws enacted by the National Assembly.
The Supreme Court's reported decision indicates that Parliament may prescribe procedural requirements governing how political parties organise their nomination processes, provided such regulation remains within constitutional bounds.
This distinction is fundamental.
There is a difference between imposing a procedural requirement on a political party and inventing a new constitutional qualification for a candidate.
The former concerns the regulation of the electoral process. The latter would raise a different constitutional question.
The judgment therefore provides an important constitutional lesson: political-party autonomy does not necessarily mean immunity from statutory electoral regulation.
A New Emphasis on Documentary Compliance
One practical implication of the judgment is that political parties will have to pay greater attention to documentary compliance.
The submission of membership registers, the statutory timelines, the conduct of primaries and the documentation of nomination processes are no longer matters that parties can safely treat as purely internal administrative affairs.
For lawyers advising political parties and aspirants, this means that evidence will become increasingly important.
A party should be able to demonstrate:
* when its membership register was prepared;
* when it was submitted to INEC;
* the contents of the register;
* compliance with the statutory period;
* who participated in the relevant primary or convention;
* the procedure adopted for nomination;
* how consensus was achieved, where applicable; and
* the documentary evidence supporting the emergence of the candidate.
In electoral litigation, the difference between a successful defence and a successful challenge can frequently be documentary.
Implications for the 2027 General Elections
The judgment has particular significance for the 2027 general elections because candidate selection will precede the elections themselves.
Political parties preparing for the 2027 elections will have to conduct their internal nomination processes with close attention to the Electoral Act 2026.
The decision also provides greater certainty regarding the legal framework under which INEC will monitor party compliance.
This is particularly relevant because the Electoral Act 2026 has introduced significant changes to Nigeria's electoral framework. The new legislation repealed and replaced the Electoral Act 2022 and altered several aspects of election administration, including party primaries, campaign finance and electoral procedures.
The 2027 electoral cycle will therefore be an important test of how these statutory provisions operate in practice.
The Defection and Consensus Question
One area requiring careful distinction is the relationship between the Supreme Court's judgment and political defection.
The decision should not automatically be interpreted as resolving every possible question concerning a person who leaves one political party and subsequently seeks nomination by another party.
The constitutional validity of Sections 77 and 84 is one question.
The interpretation and application of those provisions to a particular defection-and-consensus scenario may constitute another.
The reported judgment establishes the validity of the statutory framework. However, the precise scope of every possible factual situation should be determined from the certified judgment and, where necessary, subsequent judicial decisions.
This distinction is important for legal practitioners because an assertion that a statutory provision is constitutional is not necessarily the same as an assertion that every conceivable action taken under that provision is lawful.
Candidate Substitution Remains a Distinct Issue
The judgment should also be considered alongside the established jurisprudence concerning candidate substitution.
The Supreme Court has historically emphasised the statutory nature of candidate nomination and substitution, including in cases such as Amaechi v INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1080) 227.
Consequently, political parties should not assume that the ability to nominate candidates through a procedure recognised by Section 84 automatically gives them unrestricted power to replace candidates who have emerged through a valid nomination process.
The legal distinction between nomination, substitution, withdrawal and defection remains important.
Each question must be examined against the applicable provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and the facts of the particular case.
Electoral Litigation May Begin Before Election Day
Another important implication is the increasing importance of pre-election litigation.
The 2027 election disputes may not begin on election day.
They may begin during:
1. membership registration;
2. submission of party registers;
3. party congresses;
4. primary elections;
5. consensus arrangements;
6. nomination of candidates;
7. substitution;
8. publication of candidates' particulars; and
9. INEC's implementation of statutory requirements.
This means that political parties and aspirants must treat internal party procedures as potential evidence in future litigation.
A defective primary may generate litigation long before votes are cast.
What the Decision Means for INEC
For INEC, the judgment provides judicial support for enforcing the statutory requirements contained in the Electoral Act 2026.
However, regulatory authority must still be exercised within the limits of the Constitution and the enabling legislation.
INEC's role is not to become a political party or determine the political choices of party members. Its responsibility is to administer and regulate elections in accordance with the Constitution and applicable legislation.
The Supreme Court's decision therefore strengthens the legal basis for statutory compliance while simultaneously underscoring the importance of transparent and predictable administration.
What Political Parties Should Do Before 2027
The immediate lesson for political parties is simple: compliance must begin before the primary, not after litigation has commenced.
Political parties should review their constitutions, membership databases, registers, congress arrangements and nomination procedures against the Electoral Act 2026.
They should also maintain verifiable records capable of establishing compliance with statutory deadlines.
Party officials, aspirants and their legal advisers should equally distinguish between political strategy and legal compliance.
An arrangement may be politically convenient but still require careful legal scrutiny.
A Broader Jurisprudential Significance
From a jurisprudential standpoint, INEC v ZLP contributes to the continuing evolution of Nigerian electoral law from a system heavily dependent upon post-election litigation towards one in which statutory compliance during the pre-election phase receives increasing judicial attention.
The case also reinforces the constitutional position of the Supreme Court as the final judicial authority on questions concerning the interpretation of the Constitution and electoral legislation.
More importantly, the judgment illustrates the principle that electoral democracy depends not merely upon the casting of votes but upon a legally regulated process through which candidates emerge, political parties participate and electoral institutions perform their constitutional responsibilities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in Independent National Electoral Commission v. Zenith Labour Party, SC/CR/495/2026, is likely to become an important authority in Nigeria's emerging jurisprudence under the Electoral Act 2026.
Its immediate consequence is the restoration of the statutory framework concerning political-party membership registers and the recognised methods of candidate nomination under Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act 2026, according to reports of the judgment.
For the 2027 general elections, the message to political parties, aspirants and their legal advisers is that procedural compliance will matter.
Membership registers, statutory timelines, primaries, consensus arrangements and nomination procedures must be treated as matters carrying legal consequences.
At the same time, the full jurisprudential implications of the judgment should be assessed from the certified copy of the Supreme Court's decision once available. The precise ratio, reasoning and scope of the decision should guide future litigation rather than newspaper summaries alone.
Ultimately, Nigeria's 2027 elections will provide a practical test of whether the new electoral framework can produce greater procedural certainty while preserving the constitutional rights of political parties and citizens to participate in democratic government.
The Supreme Court has now spoken on the constitutional validity of the disputed provisions. The next chapter will be their application—in the political parties, before INEC, and ultimately, where necessary, before the courts.
Prince Elom C. Aleke, Esq.
Managing Counsel, More Grace Solicitors & Associates
Abuja-Based Legal Practitioner.
Post a Comment