INEC’s Guidelines, Timetable Meant to Ensure Transparent Conduct of Party Primary, Supreme Court Holds

• Says new laws excludes party which fails to submit register 21 days to pry 

•Sets aside judgment striking down Section 77(5)(6)(7) , 84(2) of the Electoral Act

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The Supreme Court has held that contrary to the position of political parties and the Court of Appeal, the Guidelines and Timetable of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the 2027 general elections did not in any way contravene the 1999 Constitution, but rather aimed at strengthening the internal democracy of political parties in the country.

The apex court’s position was contained in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of its recent judgment in an appeal filed by the electoral commission challenging the striking down of Sections 77(5)(6)(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act.

Specifically Sections 77(5)(6)(7) requires all political parties contesting the 2027 general elections to make available to the Commission a digital register of their members not later than 21 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or conventions.

The sections stressed that only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions, and that a political party shall not use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission and that a party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for that election.

Recall that a three-member panel of the appellate court had in a judgment on July 16, set aside the judgment of a Federal High Court which dismissed the suit brought by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), for lacking in merit, on the grounds that the INEC guidelines and timetable for the 2027 election, was unconstitutional.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, INEC had on July 28, approached the apex court for an order reversing the decision of the appellate court.

Delivering judgment last week, a five-member panel of the apex court however disagreed with the lower court and subsequently set aside the judgment nullifying the affected sections of the electoral laws.

The apex court in the lead judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim, noted that Section 77(5-7) of the Electoral Act, did not disqualify any candidate from contesting the general elections, but only excluded parties from fielding candidates whose names were not in the register submitted to the commission 21 days before the conduct of party primaries.

“It Is glaring that there is no provision in Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 that personally disqualify an individual member of a political party from contesting a general election on the ground that the political party failed to submit its digital membership register to INEC 21 days before its primary. S.77 of the Electoral Act 2026 has not disqualified from a general election a member of a political party for any reason.

“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 notion that there is a resulting disqualification from the political party’s ineligibility to field the candidate for a general election under Subsection 7 of Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 is as attractive as it might appear sound. But there is a distinction between a political party being unable or ineligible to field its members as candidates and each member as an individual being disqualified or not qualified as a candidate.

“The qualification or non-qualification can only arise after the person has been presented or fielded by the political party as its candidate at the general election. The political party’s ineligibility to field candidates for a general election excludes the members from being presented as candidates at a general election. So section 77(7) does not in any way disqualify the individual member of a political party personally from being a candidate in an election.

“The practical legal effect of Section 77(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 Is the exclusion of the members of a political party from being fielded as candidates in the general election by their political party because of its failure to submit to INEC the digital register of its members within 21 days before the primary election”, Agim held.

The apex court went further to explain that since Section 77(5) -{7) of the Electoral Act has not disqualified any member of a political party from contesting any general election, the question of whether it is in conflict with Ss. Ss. 65,66, 106,107, 131, 137, 142, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Constitution on the grounds for disqualification cannot arise.

“Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeal that S.77(5) -(7) of the Electoral Act is in conflict with Ss106,107, 131, 137, 142, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Constitution and is therefore void is wrong.

“Clearly the Court of Appeal wrongly nullified Ss. 77(5)-(7) of the Electoral Act. Its decision nullifying Ss. 77(S)-(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 is set aside”, the apex court held.

Agim stated further the said sections were clearly meant to ensure a fair and transparent conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions.

“I agree with Learned SAN for the appellant that the objective of S.77 of the Electoral Act 2026 is to ensure that political parties observe the practices of internal democracy, including the fair and transparent conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions

“The requirements that each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 21 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or conventions, that only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions, that a political party shall not use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission and that a party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shail for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission and that a party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for that election are clearly meant to ensure a fair and transparent conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions”, he held.

While pointing that the sections were in line with Section 228 of the 1999 Constitution, Agim observed that the respondent as plaintiff did not allege or show that Ss.77(5)(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 would not promote, but work against the observance of its practice of internal democracy, including the fair and transparent conduct of its party primaries, party congresses and party conventions.

He added that the INEC guidelines appeared to be in response to the past experience of political parties refusing to strictly abide with Section 77(3) of 2022 Electoral Act that required political parties to submit the register of their members within 30 days before the date of a primary election, without prescribing the legal consequences or sanctions for the failure of any political party to so submit the register of their members.

“The experience was that because $.77(3) of the 2022 Electoral Act did not prescribe the legal consequences or sanctions for the failure of any political party to submit the register of their members within 30 days before the date of a primary election, non-compliance with it was not treated as having any effect on the validity of primary elections held in such circumstance or excluding a person elected by the party in such primary from being fielded as the party candidate in the general election.

According to the apex court Section 77(3) of the 2022 Electoral Act created an environment that enabled political parties avoid the observance of the practices of internal democracy, including the fair and transparent conduct of party primaries.

On the issue of Section 84(2), which directs for direct primary or consensus, the apex court disagreed with the lower court judgment that the provisions robs political parties the right to choose their candidates, as the political parties already submitted themselves to the Constitution and Electoral Act.

“The fact that the Political Party Constitution has made provision for how the party shall nominate its candidate for general election would not curtail the scope of the exercise of legislative power vested on the National Assembly by Section 228 of the 1999 Constitution.

“The respondent’s constitution having made itself subject to the Electoral Act, the respondent cannot resile from its subjection of the party constitution to the Electoral Act and try to avoid the overriding effect of the Electoral Act over its party constitution, unless it can show that the said provision of the Electoral Act would work against internal democracy in the party and would not help a fair and transparent primary processes.

“For the above reasons the part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal nullifying Section.84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 is set aside.

“On the whole, this appeal succeeds on issues 2,3,4 and 5. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16-7-2026 in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026 declaring as unconstitutional and void S.77(5) to (7) and S. 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Activity Serial Number Two of the INEC Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Election is hereby set aside.

“I also hereby set aside the order of the Court of Appeal nullifying S.77(S) to (7) and S. 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Activity Serial Number Two of the INEC Revised Timetable and Schedule and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Election as unconstitutional.

“The judgment of the trial court delivered on 5-5-2026 dismissing Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/509/2026 is hereby restored.

“The respondent shall pay costs of two million naira to the appellant”, he held.