Appeal Court Nullifies Key Electoral Act Provisions on Party Primaries, Candidate Nomination

• Appeal Court invalidates Sections 77(5), (6), (7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, declaring them inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.

• Judgment restores political parties’ constitutional autonomy to determine membership registers and candidate nomination processes without statutory restrictions imposed by the Electoral Act.

• Court rules that no law can add to constitutional qualifications or disqualifications for candidates, affirming that the Constitution remains supreme over any conflicting legislation.

• Decision overturns Federal High Court ruling that had dismissed the Zenith Party’s suit challenging the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act.

July 16, () — The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has struck down key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 regulating political parties’ membership registers and the nomination of candidates, holding that they are inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and cannot limit the constitutional powers of political parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, a three-member panel of the appellate court presided over by Justice Balkisu Bello Aliyu, invalidated Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after ruling that they conflict with Sections 221 and 222 of the constitution, which guarantee the rights of political parties to sponsor candidates for elections and manage their internal affairs..

reports that the appeal followed the dismissal of a suit filed by the Zenith Party at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to political party membership registers and the conduct of party primaries.

Justice Mohammed Umar had, on May 5, dismissed the suit for lacking merit, prompting the party to approach the Court of Appeal.

Before the appellate court, the Zenith Party argued that the disputed provisions amounted to an unconstitutional attempt by the National Assembly to usurp powers exclusively vested in political parties by the Constitution.

The party urged the appellate court to determine whether the Electoral Act could validly impose restrictions on the internal affairs of political parties when the Constitution had already defined their rights and responsibilities.

Court Declares Provisions Unconstitutional

In its lead judgment delivered by Justice Eberechi Nyesom-Wike in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026 filed by the Zenith Party (ZP) against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Court held that the challenged provisions unlawfully interfered with the constitutional autonomy of political parties.

The court nullified Section 77(5), which required that only persons whose names appeared in a membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before party primaries, congresses, or conventions would be eligible to vote.

It also invalidated section 77(6), which prohibited political parties from using any membership register other than the one previously submitted to the electoral commission.

Similarly, section 77(7), which barred political parties that failed to submit membership registers within the stipulated period from fielding candidates for elections, was struck down.

The appellate court further declared Section 84(2) unconstitutional.

The provision had limited political parties to nominating candidates through either direct primaries or consensus.

According to the court, prescribing the mode through which political parties must nominate candidates amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion into their internal affairs.

Justice Nyesom-Wike held that Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution clearly recognise political parties as institutions with the constitutional authority to organise their internal affairs, including the selection of candidates for elections.

The court noted that sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution already provide exhaustive qualifications and disqualifications for candidates seeking elective office.

It held that no subsidiary legislation or statutory provision could validly introduce additional conditions capable of disqualifying a political party or a candidate who otherwise satisfies constitutional requirements.

The three justices unanimously stressed that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that any provision of an Act of the National Assembly inconsistent with it is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.