2027 Election Jitters: Supreme Court Ruling Rocks INEC Eligibility and Party Membership

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, clarified crucial rules concerning political party membership registers and candidate nominations, significantly impacting the preparations for the 2027 general elections. This landmark ruling, in the case of INEC v. Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), reinstated key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, thereby establishing the legal framework political parties must adhere to when nominating candidates.

Central to the judgment was the restoration of four vital provisions of the Electoral Act: Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2). These sections govern party membership registers and the process of candidate nominations. Specifically, Section 77(5) mandates that only party members whose names are listed in the official membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days prior to a party primary, congress, or convention are eligible to participate in such exercises. This prevents politicians not listed in the register from solely relying on a claim of party membership to establish their eligibility.

Section 77(6) further dictates that political parties must exclusively utilize the membership register submitted to INEC for their internal nomination processes, thereby precluding the use of altered or different lists. A critical consequence outlined in Section 77(7) states that any political party failing to submit its membership register within the legally prescribed timeframe will be rendered ineligible to field candidates for the election. This provision directly targets the party's capacity to present candidates, rather than automatically disqualifying every individual member of that party.

Regarding nomination methods, Section 84(2) prescribes that political parties must use either direct primaries or consensus for selecting their candidates for elective positions. The Supreme Court upheld this provision, affirming the constitutional authority of the National Assembly under Section 228 to enact laws and guidelines that ensure internal democracy within political parties. The court also noted that legislation regulating party primaries can be challenged if it fails to ensure internal democracy, including fair and transparent primaries, congresses, and conventions.

A significant distinction made by the Supreme Court is between a political party’s eligibility to present candidates and an individual candidate’s personal qualification to contest an election. The court explicitly held that Section 77 does not personally disqualify an individual from contesting a general election merely because the sponsoring party failed to submit its membership register on time. Instead, the statutory consequence in Section 77(7) is directed at the political party's eligibility to field candidates. This means a politician may meet all constitutional requirements for an office but still be unable to contest under a particular party if that party is legally barred from fielding candidates due to non-compliance.

INEC has already reacted to the judgment. Mohammed Haruna, INEC National Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, confirmed that parties violating the legal requirements would not be permitted to field affected candidates and that such candidates could not simply be replaced. Haruna emphasized that parties should not benefit from their own infractions, referencing past electoral disputes in states like Zamfara and Plateau. However, legal experts like Senior Advocate of Nigeria Monday Ubani have cautioned that the judgment does not grant INEC unrestricted powers to summarily disqualify candidates over alleged register violations, arguing that such disputes must be evaluated based on applicable legal procedures and individual case circumstances.

The membership register, at the core of this dispute, refers specifically to the political party’s internal register, distinct from INEC’s national register of voters. The party register serves to identify party members eligible to participate in internal nomination processes, whereas the national voter register is for public elections. The Supreme Court emphasized that these requirements promote fair and transparent nomination processes and strengthen internal democracy, aiming to prevent scenarios where party primaries are manipulated or repeated to accommodate influential new entrants.

For the 2027 elections, the ruling necessitates strict compliance from political parties with statutory deadlines for submitting membership registers and their subsequent use in nomination exercises. For aspirants, eligibility to participate in party primaries and adherence to nomination rules remain paramount. While a candidate's personal constitutional qualifications are separate from their sponsoring party’s compliance with electoral law, the central issue is whether a party’s violation can prevent it from fielding otherwise qualified candidates. The precise consequences for individual nominations will be determined by the specific legal provisions, the facts of each case, and the procedures followed to resolve any disputes.