The Supreme Court’s latest decision on political party membership registers has placed renewed focus on the rules governing candidate nominations ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections, with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) warning that parties that breach electoral requirements could be prevented from presenting candidates.
In a judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, in the case of INEC v. Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), the Supreme Court reinstated four provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 after the Court of Appeal had ruled them unconstitutional.
The provisions cover the submission of party membership registers, participation in party primaries and the procedures political parties must follow when selecting candidates for elective positions.
However, the Supreme Court made an important distinction between an individual’s qualification to contest an election and a political party’s legal eligibility to field candidates. This distinction has become central to the debate over whether politicians whose names are missing from their parties’ membership registers can automatically be disqualified from the 2027 elections.
According to the certified judgment, failure by a political party to submit its membership register within the period prescribed by law does not, by itself, amount to the personal disqualification of every member of that party.
Instead, the court explained that Section 77(7) of the Electoral Act addresses the party’s eligibility to present candidates for an election.
The judgment stated that the provision’s legal consequence is directed at the political party rather than serving as an automatic declaration that every individual member is unqualified to contest.
This means that a politician may meet the constitutional requirements for an elective office but still be unable to contest under a particular party if the party is barred from fielding candidates.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
The case followed a July 16, 2026, judgment by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which declared Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional and invalid in a suit involving the Zenith Labour Party.
INEC challenged that decision at the Supreme Court, arguing that the provisions were lawful and necessary to regulate party nomination processes.
On September 24, the apex court upheld the commission’s appeal on the disputed provisions, overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and restored the relevant parts of the Federal High Court’s earlier ruling.
According to reports by Leadership, the seven-member panel unanimously upheld the provisions, reinforcing the legal requirements governing party membership records and candidate selection.
The court also upheld the relevant part of INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.
What the Four Provisions Require
Section 77(5): Membership and participation in primaries
Under this provision, only party members whose names appear on the membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention may participate in the exercise.
The requirement means that claiming membership of a political party may not be sufficient to establish a person’s right to take part in its nomination process if their name is absent from the relevant register.
Section 77(6): Use of the submitted register
This provision requires parties to conduct their primaries, congresses and conventions using the membership register already submitted to INEC.
It is intended to prevent parties from relying on different membership records during nomination exercises, thereby strengthening consistency and transparency in the process.
Section 77(7): Failure to submit a membership register
The provision establishes that a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the legally prescribed period becomes ineligible to field candidates for the election.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation is particularly significant because it separates the consequences for a party from the personal qualifications of its members.
A candidate’s individual eligibility does not automatically resolve whether the party sponsoring that candidate has complied with the law.
Section 84(2): Candidate nomination methods
The provision prescribes direct primaries or consensus as methods for political parties to nominate candidates for elective offices.
In restoring the section, the Supreme Court affirmed the National Assembly’s authority under Section 228 of the Constitution to make laws and establish guidelines aimed at promoting internal democracy within political parties.
The court also recognised that legislation governing party primaries could be examined in terms of whether it supports fair and transparent nomination processes.
Together, the four provisions establish rules that parties must observe when maintaining membership records and selecting candidates for the 2027 elections.
Does the Judgment Automatically Disqualify Candidates?
The Supreme Court’s decision does not mean that every politician affected by a party membership-register dispute is automatically disqualified from contesting an election.
The court distinguished between personal qualification and party eligibility.
Personal qualification refers to whether an individual meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office they intend to contest.
Party eligibility concerns whether the political organisation sponsoring that individual has fulfilled the legal conditions required to field candidates.
The court explained that a person’s qualification or disqualification depends on whether they satisfy the relevant legal requirements to contest an election. Exclusion, however, may arise when a legal restriction prevents the sponsoring party from presenting its members as candidates.
Consequently, a candidate may satisfy the requirements for an office but still face an obstacle if their party is legally prohibited from fielding candidates.
Similarly, a dispute over participation in a party primary is not necessarily equivalent to a finding that the aspirant is personally unqualified for public office.
This distinction does not remove the consequences of violating electoral law. Rather, it means that the outcome depends on the particular provision involved and the legal procedures applicable to the dispute.
Why Party Membership Registers Matter
The register at the centre of the Supreme Court case is a political party’s membership record, not INEC’s national register of voters.
The two documents serve different purposes. A party membership register records individuals belonging to a political organisation and helps determine who can participate in its internal nomination processes. The national voters’ register, on the other hand, identifies eligible voters for public elections.
Under Section 77, political parties must submit their membership registers to INEC within the stipulated period and use those records for their primaries, congresses and conventions.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning linked these requirements to efforts to improve transparency and strengthen internal democracy.
The court also referred to concerns that nomination exercises could be cancelled and repeated to accommodate influential newcomers, potentially displacing aspirants who had already emerged through earlier processes.
The ruling therefore reinforces the importance of accurate membership records and compliance with statutory deadlines. For parties preparing for the 2027 elections, the register is a legal requirement that could have consequences beyond routine administration.
Can INEC Remove Candidates From Its List?
The judgment has also prompted questions about the extent of INEC’s authority to exclude candidates over alleged violations of party membership-register rules.
In a legal commentary published by Law and Society Magazine on October 5, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Monday Ubani argued that the ruling should not be interpreted as granting INEC unlimited powers to summarily disqualify individual candidates over register-related disputes.
Ubani maintained that such cases must be considered in line with the applicable law, the circumstances surrounding each nomination and the relevant legal procedures.
INEC, however, has indicated that parties found to have breached the provisions will face restrictions.
On October 6, INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan confirmed that the commission had received a Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment and was examining its implications.
The following day, INEC National Commissioner for Information and Voter Education Mohammed Haruna told Trust TV’s Daily Politics programme that parties affected by the violations would not be permitted to field candidates or substitute those affected.
Haruna argued that political parties should not benefit from their own wrongdoing and referred to previous electoral disputes in Zamfara and Plateau states.
However, INEC’s position on preventing affected parties from fielding or substituting candidates must be considered alongside the Supreme Court’s specific clarification that failure to submit a membership register does not automatically amount to the personal disqualification of every party member.
The practical outcome in any individual case will depend on the relevant legal provisions and the procedures followed to determine the dispute.
What the Ruling Means for the 2027 Elections
The Supreme Court’s decision places greater emphasis on compliance with the statutory rules governing party membership records and candidate nominations ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Political parties must ensure that their membership registers are submitted within the required period and that the same records are used during primaries, congresses and conventions. Aspirants, meanwhile, must pay attention to the rules determining who can participate in party nomination exercises.
For candidates, the judgment highlights the difference between meeting the personal requirements for an elective office and being sponsored by a party that is legally eligible to field candidates.
The ruling also clarifies that a breach by a political party does not automatically establish that every member is personally unqualified to contest. Nevertheless, the party may face restrictions that affect its ability to present candidates.
As preparations for the 2027 elections continue, the relationship between the Supreme Court’s interpretation and INEC’s enforcement position is likely to remain an important issue for political parties and aspirants.
Ultimately, the consequences of any alleged violation will depend on the specific legal provision involved, the circumstances of the case and the applicable process for resolving the dispute.
