ANALYSIS AND KEY IMPLICATIONS OF STRIKING OUT SECTIONS 77(5)(6)(7) AND 84(2) OF ELECTORAL ACT 2026 BY APPEAL COURT SITTING IN ABUJA

 

By Pastor Daniel, Nanbol Listick

Public Theologian and State Representative

Saturday 18th July, 2026

PROLOGUE: The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday 16th July, 2026 struck out Sections 77(5)(6)(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, ruling them unconstitutional because they infringed on political parties’ constitutional autonomy. This decision restores parties’ freedom to determine their membership registers and candidate nomination methods ahead of the 2027 elections. This is another victory for democracy in Nigeria if sustained by the Supreme Court or allowed as it stands. It could be recalled that Zenith Party (ZP) challenged these provisions, arguing they infringed on constitutional rights of parties under Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered. The appellate court agreed, holding that the National Assembly cannot impose restrictions beyond constitutional qualifications and disqualifications. The aforementioned sections as copied from Electoral Act 2026 are as follows:

77(5). Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.

77(6). A political party shall not use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission.

77(7). A party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for that election.

84(2), The procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions.

Summarily, Sections 77(5)(6)(7) required parties to submit membership registers to INEC 21 days before primaries, restricted use of other registers, and barred parties from fielding candidates if they failed to comply while Section 84(2) limited nomination methods to direct primaries or consensus.

LEGAL REASONING OF THE COURT

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

A. Supremacy of the Constitution: Section 1(3) of the Constitution states that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency. The Constitution (particularly Sections 40, 221–229) recognizes the freedom of association and the right of political parties to determine their membership and candidate selection processes.

B. Overreach by the Legislature: By prescribing rigid timelines and mandatory submission of membership registers, the Electoral Act was seen as infringing on the internal management rights of political parties. The court viewed these provisions as legislative overreach into matters that the Constitution leaves to party discretion.

C. INEC’s Role is Regulatory, Not Managerial: INEC can regulate elections to ensure fairness, but it cannot micro-manage party membership administration beyond what the Constitution allows.

KEY IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT FOR NOW

1. MEMBERSHIP REGISTERS

a. Section 77(5): Previously required only members listed in registers submitted to INEC 21 days before primaries to vote or be voted for. The implication is that parties now have flexibility in determining eligible members without being bound by INEC’s timeline.

b. Section 77(6): Prohibited use of any register other than the one submitted to INEC. The implication is that political parties can now use internal registers without restriction, reducing INEC’s control over internal party affairs.

c. Section 77(7): Barred parties that failed to submit registers from fielding candidates. The implication is that parties will no longer face disqualification for administrative lapses in register submission.

2. NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES: Section 84(2): Restricted nomination methods to direct primaries or consensus. The implication is that parties regain the freedom to choose indirect primaries or other methods, reinforcing their constitutional right to self-govern.

Parties now have more freedom to update membership lists and conduct primaries without being bound by the struck-out timelines. Candidates are less likely to be disqualified on purely procedural grounds relating to register submission. INEC loses a tool for verifying party membership authenticity before primaries. INEC may need to rely more on post-primary dispute resolution rather than pre-primary compliance checks. Aspirants who join parties close to primaries may now be eligible, as the rigid 21-day register rule is gone.

BROADER POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AND DEMOCRATIC IMPLICATIONS FOR NOW

a. Strengthened Party Autonomy: The ruling affirms that the Constitution (Sections 221 & 222) gives parties the sole right to decide membership and candidate sponsorship. It also reinforces the constitutional principle that parties are voluntary associations with the right to self-govern.

b. Reduced INEC Oversight and technical knockouts: INEC’s supervisory role over internal party registers and nomination methods is curtailed. Many pre-election disputes have historically been decided on technicalities, this ruling may reduce such litigation.

c. Potential for Internal Conflicts: Without statutory guardrails, disputes over membership eligibility and nomination processes may increase within parties.

Impact on 2027 Elections: Parties now have wider discretion in structuring primaries, which could lead to diverse nomination practices across Nigeria. New entrants into politics may find it easier to contest without being barred by strict register deadlines.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND CHALLENGES

a. Internal Democracy Concerns: Greater autonomy may empower party elites to manipulate registers and nomination methods. Without strict timelines, parties may manipulate membership lists to favour certain aspirants, leading to last-minute inclusion or exclusion. The absence of a statutory framework could lead to more internal wrangling, as aggrieved aspirants challenge sudden changes in membership status.

b. Legal Uncertainty: Future disputes may arise if parties adopt unconventional nomination methods.

c. Weakened Oversight: INEC’s reduced role could undermine transparency in candidate selection. The electoral umpire may find it harder to enforce transparency in candidate selection.

CONCLUSION

This judgment is a reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and the limits of legislative power in electoral matters. It draws a clear line between the regulation of elections (INEC’s constitutional role) and internal governance of political parties (protected by freedom of association). It also signals that future amendments to the Electoral Act must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on constitutional rights. Let’s watch out for the Supreme Court Appeal.