Appeal Court nullifies key Electoral Act Provisions on party membership, candidate nomination
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has declared several provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional, ruling that they unlawfully interfere with the constitutional powers of political parties over membership and candidate nomination.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, a three-member panel led by Justice Balkisu Aliyu allowed an appeal filed by the Zenith Party, overturning an earlier Federal High Court decision that had dismissed the party's suit.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Eberechi Nyesom-Wike struck down Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, holding that the National Assembly cannot enact laws that limit powers already guaranteed to political parties under the 1999 Constitution.
The court held that Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution recognise political parties as bodies responsible for sponsoring candidates and managing their internal affairs. It further ruled that where the Constitution has already prescribed qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act cannot introduce additional conditions that could prevent eligible persons from participating in party primaries.
The appeal arose from a May 5, 2026 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, where Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the Zenith Party's challenge to the constitutionality of the disputed provisions. The party had argued that the law amounted to undue interference in its internal administration and undermined its constitutional authority to determine membership and nominate candidates.
Among the provisions nullified was Section 77(5), which limited participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions to members whose names appeared in the membership register previously submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The Court of Appeal ruled that the provision unlawfully restricted political parties' constitutional authority to regulate their membership.
The court also invalidated Section 77(6), which barred political parties from using any membership register other than the one submitted to INEC, describing it as an excessive intrusion into the internal affairs of political parties.
Similarly, Section 77(7), which prevented parties that failed to submit membership registers within the prescribed period from sponsoring candidates, was struck down. The court held that the penalty effectively denied political parties their constitutional right to field candidates for elective offices.
Justice Nyesom-Wike also declared Section 84(2) unconstitutional, ruling that limiting political parties to direct primaries or consensus as methods of selecting candidates amounted to unwarranted legislative interference. The court affirmed that parties have the constitutional discretion to determine their preferred mode of candidate nomination in line with their constitutions and internal guidelines.
"The National Assembly cannot, through an Act of Parliament, impose restrictions on political parties that conflict with powers already guaranteed to them under the Constitution," the court stated.
However, the appellate court clarified that its decision does not invalidate the entire Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act. It maintained that provisions requiring political parties to maintain membership registers and make them available to INEC for regulatory purposes remain valid, adding that only the subsections found to be inconsistent with the Constitution were set aside.
Join the Savid News channel on WhatsApp:
