The Court of Appeal in Abuja has struck down key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to political party membership registers and candidate nomination processes, ruling that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
A three-member panel of the appellate court led by Justice Balkisu Aliyu delivered the unanimous judgment on Thursday, allowing an appeal filed by the Zenith Party and setting aside an earlier decision of the Federal High Court which had dismissed the suit.
In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Eberechi Nyesom-Wike, the court declared Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional.
The appellate court held that the National Assembly lacks the power to impose restrictions on political parties through legislation where such restrictions conflict with powers already guaranteed under the Constitution.
According to the court, Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution clearly recognise political parties as entities responsible for sponsoring candidates for elections and managing their internal affairs.
The court further held that where the Constitution has already outlined the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act cannot introduce additional requirements that would prevent otherwise qualified persons from participating in party primaries.
The appeal stemmed from a judgment delivered on May 5, 2026, by Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which dismissed a suit filed by the Zenith Party challenging the constitutionality of the disputed provisions.
The party had argued that the provisions amounted to undue interference in the internal administration of political parties and undermined their constitutional powers to determine membership and nominate candidates for elections.
Among the provisions struck down was Section 77(5), which stipulated that only party members whose names appeared in the membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could vote or be voted for at party primaries, congresses and conventions.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the provision unlawfully restricted the constitutional authority of political parties to regulate their membership affairs.
The court also invalidated Section 77(6), which prohibited political parties from using any membership register other than the one previously submitted to INEC.
According to the judgment, the provision granted excessive control over the internal affairs of political parties to the electoral commission.
Similarly, the appellate court nullified Section 77(7), which barred political parties that failed to submit their membership registers within the prescribed period from sponsoring candidates for elections.
The court held that such a penalty effectively deprived political parties of their constitutional right to field candidates for elective offices.
Justice Nyesom-Wike also struck down Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act, ruling that restricting political parties to either direct primaries or consensus as methods of nominating candidates amounted to undue legislative interference in their internal affairs.
The court maintained that political parties should retain the constitutional discretion to determine their preferred mode of candidate selection in accordance 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 held.
However, the Court of Appeal clarified that its decision did not invalidate the entirety of Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act.
It noted that provisions requiring political parties to maintain membership registers and make them available to INEC for regulatory purposes remain valid.
The court explained that only the specific subsections found to be inconsistent with the Constitution were nullified.
