The Supreme Court, on Thursday, restored portions of the Electoral Act 2026 that had earlier been struck down by the Court of Appeal.

The apex court, in a unanimous decision by a seven-member panel of Justices, allowed an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to challenge the appellate court’s judgment.

In its lead verdict, delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, the Supreme Court specifically validated the provisions of sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which regulate the membership registers of political parties and the procedure for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.

It faulted the appellate court for upholding an appeal filed by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) against those portions of the electoral law.
According to the apex court, the contested sections of the Electoral Act were not in conflict with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

Stressing that the ZLP’s appeal ought to have been dismissed, the panel went ahead to reinstate the judgment of the Federal High Court on the matter.

Aside from dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court awarded costs of N2 million against the ZLP, which was listed as a respondent in the appeal.

It will be recalled that the Abuja Division of the appellate court had, on July 16, struck down portions of the Electoral Act for being inconsistent with the Constitution.

The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel, held that the sections were at variance with the provisions of sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which give political parties the right to decide whom to sponsor in an election.

The judgment followed an appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026, which the ZLP lodged against INEC.

The ZLP had gone to the appellate court to challenge the dismissal of a suit it filed to query the constitutionality of some provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to the membership registers of political parties and the conduct of primary elections.

Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act stipulates that only persons whose names are contained in the register submitted to INEC not later than 21 days before the date fixed for primaries, congresses or conventions are eligible to vote.

Sub-section (6) provides that a political party shall not use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission.

Likewise, sub-section (7) provides that a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for the election.

On the other hand, section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 provides that the procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct primaries or consensus.

The appellate court, in its lead verdict delivered by Justice Eberechi Nyesom-Wike, found merit in the case the ZLP brought before it.

However, dissatisfied with the invalidation of sections of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC took the matter before the Supreme Court.

While the electoral body, in the appeal marked SC/CR/495/2026, urged the apex court to allow the appeal and overturn the appellate court’s decision, the ZLP sought its dismissal for want of merit.

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja had, on May 5, dismissed the ZLP’s case as lacking in merit.

Dissatisfied with the verdict, the political party approached the appellate court and asked it to determine, among other things, whether the stated provisions of the Electoral Act are superior to the powers conferred on political parties by the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The party urged the appellate court to determine whether the electoral law was an attempt to usurp the right of political parties to decide how to conduct their internal affairs.

In its judgment, the appellate court noted that sections 177 and 182 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, already listed the qualifying and disqualifying factors for political parties and candidates in an election.

It held that no other condition contained in a subsidiary law could disqualify an individual already qualified by the Constitution.