In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Thursday, the 24th day of September, 2026
Before their Lordships
Adamu Jauro
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim
Haruna Simon Tsammani
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein
Stephen Jonah Adah
Abubakar Sadiq Umar
Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/495/2026
Between
INEC Appellant
And
Zenith Labour Party Respondent
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC)
Facts
The Respondent, a registered political party, had by Originating Summons sought declarations and injunctive reliefs against the Appellant, challenging the provision of Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026, that a political party maintain and submit to the Appellant a digital register of its members, containing personal particulars including date of birth, ward, polling unit and National Identification Number, not later than 21 days before its primaries, congresses or conventions, as a precondition for fielding candidates; and challenging Section 84(2) of the Act, which restricts the mode of party primaries to direct primaries or consensus, as inconsistent with provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) on qualification for elective office.
The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of merit. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court and declared Sections 77(5) to (7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, together with Activity Serial Number Two of the Appellant’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election, unconstitutional and void; and restrained the Appellant from enforcing them.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The Supreme Court determined the appeal on the issues raised by the Appellant, thus:
i. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal lack the jurisdiction to entertain and allow the Respondent’s appeal, having regard to the suit as constituted?
ii. Whether the provisions of Section 77(2)(4)(5)(6) & (7) of the Electoral Act, 2026 and Activity Number 2 of the Appellant’s Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 65(2)(b), 106(d), 131(c), 142(2), 177(c) and 187(2) and Paragraph 15(a)-(i) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and therefore null and void?
iii. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in the construction and interpretation of Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026 and Sections 221, 222(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)?
iv. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in striking down the provisions of Section 77(5)(6) & (7) and Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, having regard to the provisions of Section 228(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the Respondent’s suit as constituted?
v. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they nullified and set aside Activity Serial No. 2 of the Appellant’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of activities for the 2027 General Election as being inconsistent with Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act, 2026?
Arguments
On issue one, the Appellant argued that at the trial court, the Respondent as Plaintiff made several complaints against the National Assembly. That the principal reliefs sought were targeted at the National Assembly, against whom the court made far-reaching findings against. It, therefore, contended that the National Assembly is a necessary party to the suit, and that the non-joinder rendered the suit incompetent and robbed the court of jurisdiction.
In response, the Respondent argued that it is evident from the questions raised and the reliefs claimed in the originating summons that it is the Appellant, not the National Assembly, that the Respondent has a grievance with. It submitted that the suit challenged the actions of the Appellant, its directives and regulations under Sections 77(4)-(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act affecting the Respondent’s activities as a political party. That challenging the constitutional validity of those statutory provisions does not necessarily imply a challenge to the authority of the National Assembly; and that the reliefs claimed are not targeted at the National Assembly. It submitted further that, to require the National Assembly to be joined in every action challenging the constitutionality of an Act it made would be absurd; and that the questions and reliefs were capable of being effectually and completely determined without the National Assembly joined as a party. It relied on Order 9 Rule 14 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, MBANEFO v MOLOKWU & ORS (2014) LPELR-22257(SC) and SIFAX (NIG) LTD & ORS v MIGFO NIG LTD & ANOR (2018) LPELR-49735(SC).
While the Appellant posited that its activities and the provisions in the Electoral Act, 2026 on submission of register of political parties is not unconstitutional, the Respondent resisted the appeal on this ground. It contended that Section 77(5)-(7) of the Electoral Act, 2026, placed disqualification for failure to submit the membership register within the stipulated time on an individual whom the Constitution had already cleared, merely because the individual joined another party after the deadline for submitting the register, and that the provision vested in the Appellant a power to disqualify, which power is constitutionally reserved for the courts, thereby conflicting with Section 221 of the Constitution and the provisions on qualification.
The Respondent, resisting the Appellant’s appeal on this issue, maintained that the grounds for disqualification from a general election are exhaustively prescribed in Sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 142, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Constitution, that the Constitution has covered the field on such grounds, and that Section 77 of the Electoral Act, to the extent that it introduces failure to submit a membership register as a ground of disqualification, is inconsistent with those constitutional provisions and void.
On issue three, the part of the Court of Appeal’s judgement under review held that a member of a political party, by joining the party, subscribes to and is bound by its constitution; that it would not be right for the National Assembly to re-write a party’s constitution by changing how it sponsors its candidates; that upon registration, a political party submits its constitution to the Appellant, and that for the Electoral Act to tick off aspects of that constitution should not be lawful; since the Supreme Court has held that nomination and sponsorship are internal affairs of a political party, section 84(2) of the Electoral Act prescribing direct primaries or consensus as the only modes of nomination, was held to conflict with Section 222 of the Constitution. Against this backdrop, the Appellant argued against the reasoning above, submitting that by Section 228(a), (b) and (d) of the Constitution, the law-making power of the National Assembly over party primaries is valid once it serves to ensure internal democracy, and that the Respondent had not shown that direct primaries or consensus would undermine, rather than promote, internal democracy within the party.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
Deciding issue one, the Supreme Court held that the questions raised and the reliefs claimed in the Originating Summons “glaringly show that the suit challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 77(4)-(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 under which the Appellant’s actions, directives and regulations… were made”, and that “the joinder of the National Assembly as party in this suit is not made compelling merely because the suit challenged Appellant’s actions, directives and regulations, on the ground that the provisions of the Act of the National Assembly under which the appellant acted are unconstitutional.” The Court held, relying on RE: MOGAJI (1986) NWLR (PT. 19) 759, that the test is whether the entry of the party sought to be joined is necessary for an effectual and complete adjudication of all questions in the case – MBANEFO v MOLOKWU & ORS (2014) LPELR-22257(SC). The Supreme Court found that the suit at the trial court “was effectually, completely and conclusively determined, resulting in the dismissal of the suit for lack of merit.” That the Appellant, in whose favour that determination was made, was contending for the first time in this appeal that the National Assembly was a necessary party. Relying on ONAYEMI v OKUNUBI (1966) NMLR 50 and CBN v INTERSTELLA COMMUNICATIONS LTD & ORS (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294, the Court held that the arguments of the Appellant on this issue are rendered invalid.
On issue two, the Court set out Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026 in full, holding that there is no provision in Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 that personally disqualifies an individual member of a political party from contesting a general election, on the ground that the political party failed to submit its digital membership register to INEC 21 days before its primary. The statutory consequence in subsection 7 is directed at the political party’s eligibility to field candidates for a general election, not an express personal disqualification of every individual member of that political party. The Court distinguished qualification or disqualification, which concerns whether the person is legally qualified to contest the election if fielded, from exclusion, which concerns the prevention of the political party from fielding its members as candidates, holding that members become prevented from participating due to an impediment affecting the political party, nomination, sponsorship or electoral process, rather than from a personal fault or feature of a person. It held that since Section 77(5)-(7) of the Electoral Act has not disqualified any member of a political party from contesting any general election, the question of whether it is in conflict with Sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 142, 177, and 182 of the 1999 Constitution on the grounds of disqualification cannot arise. Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeal nullifying Sections 77(5)-(7) was accordingly, set aside.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellant that the objective of Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026 is to ensure that political parties observe internal democracy, in keeping with Section 228 of the Constitution. Relying on ARDO v NYAKO (2014) 10 NWLR (PT. 1416) 591 at 620, and PRESIDENT, F.R.N. v NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1870) 1 at 32, Their Lordships held that the legislative power of the National Assembly over the internal affairs of a political party is limited by Section 228(a), to the making of a law to provide guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties. The Court held further that the Respondent as Plaintiff did not allege or show that Section 77(5)-(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 would not promote, but work against the observance of its practice of internal democracy. The Court resolved issue two in favour of the Appellant.
Deciding issue three, the Supreme Court held that “by virtue of Section 228(a), (b) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution, the only basis upon which an Act of the National Assembly made for the conduct of party primaries can be impugned or nullified, is that it would not ensure internal democracy within the political party, including the fair and transparent conduct of party primaries, congresses and conventions”, and that the Respondent, as Plaintiff, did not allege or show that the legislative prescription of nomination of candidates by political parties… by direct primaries or consensus in Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 would not ensure internal democracy. The Court held that “the fact that the Political Party Constitution has made provision for how the party shall nominate its candidate for general election, would not curtail the scope of the exercise of legislative power vested on the National Assembly by Section 228 of the 1999 Constitution”. Their Lordships noted that Section 2 of the Respondent’s own constitution made itself subject to the provisions of the Constitution and Electoral Act, and held that the Respondent cannot resile from its subjection of the party constitution to the Electoral Act, and try to avoid the overriding effect of the Electoral Act over its party constitution, unless it can show that the said provision of the Electoral Act would work against internal democracy in the party. The part of the judgement of the Court of Appeal nullifying Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act was set aside, and issue three was resolved in favour of the Appellant. In light of the decisions on issues two and three, issue four was equally resolved in favour of the Appellant.
On issue five, the Supreme Court held that there was nothing in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons to show that Activity Serial No. 2 of the Appellant’s Revised Timetable was inconsistent with Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act, and that the undisputed facts in the Appellant’s counter-affidavit showed that the Respondent was given sufficient time as required by Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act 2026 to submit the digital register of its members, the Appellant having shifted the timeline from 21st to 23rd April, 2026, to a subsequent window of 23rd April to 30th May, 2026. The Court held that there was therefore, no basis to nullify the Appellant’s Revised Time Table and Schedule of Activities for violating the timeline in Section 77(4), and resolved issue five in favour of the Appellant.
On the whole, the Court held that the appeal succeeded on issues two, three, four and five, set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal, and restored the judgement of the trial court. Costs in the sum of N2 million, was awarded in favour of the Appellant.
Appeal Allowed.
Representation
Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, Dr Alhassan A. Umar, SAN with F.O. Izinyon, M.A. Bawa and others for the Appellant.
Ikechukwu Anyalewechi with ThankGod Enehor for the Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)