The Supreme Court’s recent judgment on political party membership registers raised fresh questions about the eligibility of candidates seeking to contest Nigeria’s 2027 general elections. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), subsequently warned that parties found to have violated the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 will not be allowed to field affected candidates.
In its September 24, 2026, judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), the Supreme Court restored four provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing party membership registers and candidate nomination after the Court of Appeal had declared them unconstitutional.
However, the judgment draws a critical distinction between the personal qualification of an individual candidate and a political party’s eligibility to present candidates for an election.
The distinction is central to understanding whether a politician whose name is missing from a party’s membership register is automatically disqualified from contesting an election, and whether INEC can remove such a candidate from its list without further legal proceedings.
According to the certified judgment , the Supreme Court held that Section 77 of the Electoral Act does not personally disqualify an individual from contesting a general election simply because the sponsoring party failed to submit its membership register within the prescribed period.
Instead, the court explained that the statutory consequence under Section 77(7) concerns the party’s eligibility to field candidates.
“The statutory consequence in subsection 7 is directed at the political party’s eligibility to field candidates for a general election, not an express personal disqualification of every individual member of that political party from the general election,” the court held.
The judgment therefore separates an individual’s constitutional and statutory qualifications from compliance with the legal requirements governing party membership and nomination.
What exactly did the Supreme Court decide?
The dispute arose after the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on July 16, 2026, declared Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional and void in a case brought by the Zenith Labour Party.
INEC challenged the decision at the Supreme Court, arguing that the provisions were valid and necessary for regulating party primaries and ensuring compliance with electoral law.
On September 24, the apex court allowed the commission’s appeal on the substantive issues concerning the disputed provisions, set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and restored the relevant parts of the Federal High Court’s earlier judgment.
LEADERSHIP reports that the seven-member panel unanimously upheld the provisions, which regulate membership registers, participation in party primaries and the methods through which parties nominate candidates.
The ruling also upheld the relevant part of INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.
What the four provisions mean
Section 77(5): Who can participate in a primary?
The provision stipulates that only party members whose names appear in the membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a party primary, congress or convention may participate in the exercise.
In practical terms, a politician who is not listed in the relevant register cannot simply rely on a claim of party membership to establish eligibility to participate in that nomination exercise.
Section 77(6): Which register must a party use?
The provision requires political parties to use the membership register submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses and conventions.
This is intended to prevent parties from relying on a different register during a nomination exercise after submitting one to the commission.
Section 77(7): What happens if a party fails to submit its register?
This provision stipulates that a party that fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed statutory period is ineligible to field candidates for the election.
The distinction is important: the provision concerns the party’s eligibility to present candidates, rather than automatically declaring every member of the party personally unqualified to contest an election.
Section 84(2): How must candidates be nominated?
The provision prescribes direct primaries or consensus as the methods for nominating candidates for elective positions.
The Supreme Court restored the provision, holding that the National Assembly has constitutional authority under Section 228 to make laws and guidelines aimed at ensuring internal democracy within political parties.
The court said legislation regulating party primaries may be challenged on the basis that it would not ensure internal democracy, including fair and transparent primaries, congresses and conventions.
The ruling therefore reinforces the statutory framework governing the nomination of candidates ahead of the 2027 elections.
Does the ruling automatically disqualify a candidate?
No. The Supreme Court expressly distinguished between personal disqualification and exclusion arising from a political party’s inability to field candidates.
Personal eligibility concerns whether an individual satisfies the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office being contested.
Party eligibility, on the other hand, concerns whether the sponsoring political party has complied with the legal requirements for presenting candidates.
The Supreme Court explained that the two concepts are not interchangeable.
“Qualification or disqualification concerns whether the person is legally qualified, meets the constitutional or legal requirements to contest the election if fielded by any political party as a candidate for the election,” the court held.
It added that exclusion occurs when a legal impediment prevents a party from presenting its members as candidates.
The implication is that a politician may satisfy the constitutional requirements for an office but still be unable to contest under a particular party if the party is legally barred from fielding candidates.
Similarly, a dispute over whether a candidate participated in a valid party primary is not automatically the same as a finding that the candidate is personally disqualified from holding public office.
This distinction does not mean that breaches of the Electoral Act are inconsequential. Rather, the legal consequence must be determined according to the particular provision breached and the applicable legal process.
Why the membership register matters
The membership register at the centre of the dispute is the political party’s register, not INEC’s national register of voters.
The two records serve different purposes.
A party membership register identifies members of a political party and determines who may participate in its internal nomination processes under the applicable law.
The national register of voters, by contrast, records eligible voters for public elections.
The Supreme Court’s judgment concerns the former and the rules governing political party primaries.
Under Section 77, parties are required to submit their membership registers to INEC within the prescribed timeframe and use the submitted register for their primaries, congresses and conventions.
The court explained that these requirements were designed to promote fair and transparent nomination processes and strengthen internal democracy.
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court also referred to concerns that party primaries could be cancelled and repeated to accommodate new entrants with substantial financial or political influence, potentially displacing candidates who had emerged through earlier nomination exercises.
The court cited previous nomination disputes in explaining the problems the legislation was intended to address.
The implication is that membership-register compliance is not merely an administrative formality. It is part of the legal framework governing who participates in party primaries and how candidates emerge.