The Supreme Court has upheld the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, against the Court of Appeal judgment voiding part of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 dealing with political party primaries and membership registers.
INEC filed an appeal against part of the Court of Appeal judgment which voided part of the Electoral Act, in a suit a political party, Zenith Labour Party, commenced at the High Court.
After hearing the appeal filed by INEC, through its Counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, Justice Adamu Jauro entered judgement in favour of the electoral umpire and set aside the Court of Appeal judgement which was in favour of Zenith Labour Party.
The apex court upheld the judgment of the trial court and also awarded cost of N2 million against the respondent (ZLP).
The apex court held that Sections 77(5) and 84 of the Electoral Act are not in conflict with the 1999 Constitution.
Also, the court in two other judgements dismissed two separate appeals, filed by Social Democratic Party and Youth Party, also filed separate appeals against INEC.
SDP and YP were the appellants in that case. The two political parties filed appeals to challenge the decisions of the Court of Appeal in their case.
In SDP v INEC, the appeal was heard on its merit and was accordingly dismissed by the court.
In Youth Party's appeal, the preliminary objection filed by INEC was upheld and the appeal was struck out for being incompetent.
The court described the appeal as invalid and incompetent, having been filed out of time by one day.
A seven-man panel of the apex court, presided over by Justice Adamu Jauro, last week, reserved judgment after hearing arguments from the parties.
In its appeal, INEC urged the court to dismiss the appeal filed by YP and SDP.
The original suit, marked FHC/ABJ/509/2026, was filed by the ZLP against the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The provisions at the centre of the dispute include Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) concern the statutory requirements relating to political parties’ membership registers, while Section 84(2) prescribes direct primaries or consensus as methods for the nomination of candidates by political parties.
The ZLP had argued at the trial court that the provisions conflicted with the 1999 Constitution and amounted to unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
The party’s case is anchored, among others, on Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution, which provide for the constitutional framework governing political parties.
After the Federal High Court dismissed the suit, the ZLP appealed, leading to the Court of Appeal’s July 16 judgment.
INEC, dissatisfied with that judgment, subsequently lodged the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Discussion0