In a landmark ruling that could reshape the landscape of Nigerian electoral politics, the Court of Appeal in Abuja has declared several key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional, striking down sections that govern how political parties conduct primary elections and maintain membership registers. The decision, delivered just six months before the 2027 general elections, represents a significant victory for party autonomy and a rebuke to what the court deemed excessive legislative interference in the internal affairs of political organizations.
A three member panel led by Justice Balkisu Aliyu unanimously ruled on Thursday that sections 77(5), (6), and (7), along with section 84(2) of the Electoral Act, directly conflicted with constitutional provisions that guarantee political parties the right to determine their own membership and candidate nomination processes. Justice Eberechi Nyesom-Wike, who delivered the lead judgment, found that these provisions vested excessive control over party operations in the Independent National Electoral Commission, effectively undermining the autonomy that sections 221 and 222 of the Nigerian constitution explicitly protect. The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by Zenith Party, which had initially lost its constitutional challenge in the Federal High Court in May.
The now invalidated provisions had imposed stringent requirements on political parties that many viewed as overly restrictive. Section 77(6) mandated that parties use only membership registers submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses, and conventions, while section 77(7) went further by barring any party that failed to submit such registers within prescribed timeframes from fielding candidates altogether. Perhaps most controversially, section 84(2) limited parties to only two ods of selecting candidates: direct primaries or consensus arrangements. These restrictions, contained in legislation signed by President Bola Tinubu in February, had sparked immediate concern among political observers who worried about the implications for democratic competition and party independence.
Zenith Party argued persuasively that these provisions represented an unconstitutional intrusion into matters that should remain within party control. The political organization contended that forcing parties to adhere to rigid timelines for register submission and limiting their choice of nomination ods fundamentally curtailed their constitutional powers. Lower courts initially dismissed these concerns, but the appellate panel found merit in the argument that such heavy handed regulation could effectively deny parties their basic right to participate in elections and choose their own standard bearers. The court emphasized that while reasonable regulation serves the public interest, legislation cannot cross the line into controlling the essential internal functions of political associations.
Legal experts and political analysts have welcomed the decision as a restoration of constitutional balance. The timing proves particularly significant given Nigeria’s history of contested elections and disputes over party nomination processes. By affirming that political parties retain primary authority over their membership rolls and candidate selection ods, the court has reinforced a principle central to multiparty democracy: that political organizations must have sufficient autonomy to function as genuine vehicles for popular participation rather than entities micromanaged by electoral authorities or constrained by overly prescriptive laws. Constitutional scholars note that sections 221 and 222, which the court invoked, were designed precisely to protect this space for independent political organizing.
Moving forward, this ruling creates both opportunities and challenges as Nigeria approaches the 2027 election cycle. Political parties now have greater flexibility in structuring their primaries and managing membership, potentially opening the door to more innovative and inclusive nomination processes beyond the direct primary or consensus ods that had been mandated. However, the decision also places additional responsibility on parties to conduct their internal affairs transparently and fairly without the scaffolding of detailed statutory requirements. INEC will need to adjust its election preparations and oversight mechanisms to accommodate the new legal landscape, while the National Assembly may consider whether revised legislation that respects constitutional boundaries might still serve legitimate regulatory interests. For Nigerian voters and democracy watchers across Africa, the case stands as an important reminder that even well intentioned electoral reforms must yield to fundamental constitutional protections when the two come into conflict.
Leave a comment