Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Act Sections on Party Membership Registers

Supreme Court Ruling on Electoral Act

On 24 September 2026, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a judgment that invalidated specific provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. The judiciary determined that specific clauses within the legislation, namely Sections 77(5) through (7) and 84(2), which mandate digital member registers and limit primary voting methods to direct or consensus formats, conflict with the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, including its amendments. Additionally, the ruling invalidated Activity Serial Number Two from the appellant’s updated schedule for the 2027 General Election, deeming that particular item to be unconstitutional.

The case was brought by a registered political party (the Respondent) against the National Assembly (the Appellant). The Respondent sought declarations and injunctive reliefs, arguing that the contested provisions infringed constitutional provisions relating to the qualification for elective office and the conduct of party primaries.

The lower court rejected the case, finding no substantive basis for the claims. The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, declaring the contested sections and the activity schedule void and restraining the National Assembly from enforcing them. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal on several legal questions, including the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the constitutionality of the challenged provisions.

Background

The Electoral Act 2026 introduced new requirements for political parties, notably a digital register of members that must be submitted within 21 days before any primary, congress or convention. Section 84(2) further limited the mode of primaries to direct primaries or consensus. The opposing party contended that these mandates breached constitutional safeguards for parties and candidates, specifically citing Sections 65(2)(b), 106(d), 131(c), 142(2), 177(c), 187(2), and Paragraph 15(a)-(i) of the Third Schedule.

The Court of Appeal had previously found these provisions unconstitutional and void, a decision that the Supreme Court confirmed. The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and whether its interpretations of the Constitution were correct.

Why it matters

The ruling directly affects how political parties organise and conduct primaries for the 2027 general election. By striking down the requirement for a digital membership register, the court removes a significant administrative burden and potential barrier to candidate nomination. The decision also expands the permissible methods of conducting primaries beyond direct primaries and consensus, allowing parties greater flexibility. These changes could influence the internal democracy of parties and the overall conduct of elections.

What happens next

The Supreme Court’s judgment effectively nullifies the contested provisions and the activity schedule, preventing the National Assembly from enforcing them. The ruling does not specify further procedural steps, but it sets a precedent for future challenges to electoral regulations that may be deemed unconstitutional.