CURRENT COURT ISSUES ON INEC’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELECTORAL ACT 2026
What the Latest Court Rulings Mean for Political Parties, Candidates and the 2027 Elections
By Sanusi Muhammad
Commentator on National Issues
As the 2027 general elections draw closer, a series of court decisions concerning the Electoral Act 2026 and the implementation of its provisions by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have assumed increasing importance.
The litigation touches on issues ranging from political-party membership registers and the conduct of primaries to candidate nomination, election timetables and party registration.
For politicians, political parties and prospective candidates, particularly those already positioning themselves for elective office, understanding the current legal position is essential.
In Bauchi State and elsewhere, there is growing speculation that some politicians could be affected by the evolving interpretation and enforcement of the new electoral framework. However, it is important to distinguish between what the courts have actually decided and assumptions being made about the consequences for individual politicians.
The most significant recent development is the Supreme Court's restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 dealing with party membership registers and methods of candidate nomination.
1. Supreme Court Restores Key Electoral Act Provisions
On 24 September 2026, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, unanimously allowed an appeal by INEC in SC/CR/495/2026, involving the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and other parties.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16 July 2026 and restored the earlier judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar on 5 May 2026.
The High Court had dismissed ZLP's challenge to certain provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The Supreme Court also awarded ₦2 million in costs against ZLP.
The decision effectively restored four provisions that had been struck down by the Court of Appeal:
- Section 77(5)
- Section 77(6)
- Section 77(7)
- Section 84(2)
What do the provisions mean?
Section 77(5) requires that only members whose names appear on a political party's membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention may participate in the relevant process.
Section 77(6) requires political parties to use the membership register submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(7) provides consequences where a political party fails to submit its membership register within the prescribed period, including the inability to field candidates.
Section 84(2) provides for the nomination of candidates through direct primaries or consensus.
The Supreme Court's decision therefore gives INEC a stronger legal basis to insist that political parties comply with these requirements ahead of the 2027 elections.
2. What the Supreme Court Actually Decided
The significance of the judgment should not be overstated.
The Supreme Court determined that the challenged provisions are not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The Court rejected the argument that the provisions amounted to unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
The decision recognises the legislative authority of the National Assembly to regulate aspects of the electoral process, including party procedures that directly affect the nomination of candidates for public elections.
The reasoning, as reported from the judgment, is that requirements concerning membership registers and nomination procedures constitute statutory mechanisms intended to promote transparency, accountability and integrity in electoral processes.
The Court of Appeal had previously taken a different position and voided the provisions in part. The Supreme Court has now overturned that position.
However, one important distinction must be maintained:
The judgment validates the provisions; it does not, by itself, disqualify every politician whose circumstances might subsequently be examined under those provisions.
Any challenge involving a particular candidate, primary or nomination would have to be determined on its own facts and applicable law.
3. The Membership Register Question
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the ruling concerns political-party membership registers.
Under the restored provisions, parties cannot simply rely on a different list when conducting a primary, congress or convention from the membership register submitted to INEC in accordance with the law.
This places a substantial compliance responsibility on political parties.
The implication is particularly important where there are disputes over who participated in a primary or whether individuals were valid members of a party at the relevant time.
A party that fails to comply with the statutory requirement could face serious consequences, including challenges to its ability to field candidates.
It also means that political parties will have to pay greater attention to the accuracy, authenticity and timely submission of their membership registers.
4. Candidate Nomination and Direct Primaries or Consensus
Section 84(2), as restored by the Supreme Court, provides that political parties shall nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus.
This has obvious implications for internal party politics.
It means that the conduct of candidate selection cannot be treated simply as an internal political arrangement divorced from the statutory framework governing elections.
Where a nomination is challenged, the courts may be required to examine whether the party complied with the Electoral Act, its constitution and applicable regulations.
Nevertheless, the existence of the provision does not mean that every previously conducted nomination is automatically invalid.
The circumstances surrounding each nomination remain important.
5. The 2027 Election Timetable: Another Major Legal Battle
A separate but related area of litigation concerns INEC's timetable and guidelines for the 2027 elections.
Federal High Court decisions involving challenges by the Youth Party and the Social Democratic Party raised questions about whether INEC's timetable complied strictly with statutory periods prescribed by the Electoral Act 2026.
Among the issues examined were the statutory periods relating to:
- submission of candidates' personal particulars and nomination forms;
- withdrawal and substitution of candidates; and
- publication of the final list of candidates.
The courts emphasised that while INEC has constitutional and statutory authority to organise elections and issue timetables, its administrative timetable must remain consistent with the timeframes established by legislation.
Some deadlines contained in INEC's timetable were consequently challenged on the ground that they allegedly shortened periods prescribed by the Act.
However, the litigation has not been entirely one-sided. The Court of Appeal has subsequently set aside at least one of the High Court decisions concerning INEC's timetable, while other matters remain subject to appeal.
The practical lesson is that the timetable issue must be followed according to the latest binding court orders rather than relying on an earlier judgment that may subsequently have been overturned or appealed.
6. The NDC and Other Party-Registration Litigation
Other cases have also emerged around party registration and provisions of the Electoral Act.
In one Federal High Court case in Abuja, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) challenged provisions including Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The court reportedly dismissed the challenge, holding that the provisions in question were not unconstitutional and that Section 138 provides a statutory procedure for dealing with qualification and disqualification disputes arising from party primaries.
There have also been proceedings concerning the registration of political parties.
For example, litigation in Lokoja involving the NDC resulted in an earlier order compelling INEC to register the party subsequently being set aside following questions concerning the non-joinder of another political party over issues relating to its proposed symbol or logo.
Such cases demonstrate the complexity surrounding the registration, recognition and participation of political parties in the 2027 electoral process.
7. What This Means for Politicians in Bauchi and Elsewhere
The temptation following major electoral judgments is to immediately identify individuals who may supposedly be "casualties".
That approach requires caution.
The Supreme Court's decision has restored the legal validity of the disputed provisions, but it does not contain an automatic declaration that any particular politician is disqualified from contesting the 2027 elections.
For an individual candidate to be affected, there would ordinarily need to be a factual and legal basis for applying the relevant provision to that person's circumstances.
Questions could include:
- Was the person a recognised member of the relevant political party at the material time?
- Was the person's name contained in the membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period?
- Was the relevant primary, congress or convention conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act?
- Was the nomination process consistent with the party's constitution and applicable regulations?
- Was there a valid challenge within the applicable statutory period?
- Has a competent court made a binding order concerning the candidate or nomination?
These questions are more legally significant than political speculation about who may or may not be affected.
8. Why the Supreme Court Judgment Matters
The decision nevertheless represents an important development in Nigeria's evolving electoral jurisprudence.
It provides greater certainty concerning the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
For INEC, it strengthens the legal foundation for monitoring compliance with party membership-register requirements and nomination procedures.
For political parties, it increases the importance of maintaining accurate membership records and complying with statutory deadlines.
For aspirants and candidates, it underscores the need to ensure that their emergence is supported not only by political arrangements within their parties but also by compliance with the Electoral Act.
For voters, the litigation reinforces the importance of understanding that electoral disputes are governed by specific statutory procedures and timelines.
9. The Larger Constitutional Question
At the heart of these disputes is a broader question about the balance between political-party autonomy and the power of the state to regulate the electoral process.
Political parties are private associations with constitutionally protected political functions. At the same time, their activities determine who ultimately appears on the ballot for public office.
The Supreme Court's latest decision confirms that Parliament can impose statutory requirements on aspects of party organisation and candidate nomination where those requirements are connected to the electoral process.
The continuing litigation will therefore remain important in determining how far such regulation can extend and how strictly INEC can enforce it.
Conclusion
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, politicians, political parties, lawyers and voters should pay close attention to the evolving body of electoral jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court's restoration of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 is currently the clearest judicial development concerning party membership registers and candidate nomination.
But the decision should not be converted into a blanket declaration affecting unnamed individuals.
The law must be applied to facts.
In Bauchi State, as elsewhere, any claim that a particular aspirant or candidate has been affected by the judgment should therefore be tested against the person's membership status, the relevant party register, the conduct of the applicable primary or nomination process, statutory timelines and any subsequent court orders.
The 2027 electoral process is increasingly becoming a contest not only of political strength but also of legal compliance.
For political parties and aspirants, the message is straightforward: political calculations may determine who emerges, but statutory compliance will determine whether that emergence survives legal scrutiny.