Special Investigative Report | Atlantic Post | 10 October 2026
All 22 registered parties were reported to have submitted membership registers in May. The new test is whether INEC can verify the records and apply the Supreme Court’s ruling consistently ahead of the 2027 elections.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has challenged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enforce Nigeria’s political party membership register laws, raising a critical question ahead of the 2027 general elections: can the electoral umpire prove that candidates seeking public office emerged from legally compliant party processes?
In a letter dated 9 October 2026, the ruling party asked INEC to verify political parties’ compliance with Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 and impose the consequences prescribed by law wherever violations are established.
The demand follows the Supreme Court’s 24 September judgment in INEC v Zenith Labour Party, Suit No. SC/CV/495/2026, which restored disputed provisions governing membership registers, party primaries, congresses and conventions.
But the controversy extends beyond the legal force of the judgment. It concerns the integrity of the records used to select candidates, the treatment of aspirants whose membership is disputed and whether the same standards will apply to every political party.
APC Demands Enforcement of Supreme Court Judgment
The APC addressed its letter to INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan. It was jointly signed by the party’s National Chairman, Professor Nentawe Yilwatda, and National Secretary, Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru.
The party urged the commission to establish whether political parties submitted their digital membership registers within the statutory period and whether they used those same records to conduct their internal elections.
Section 77(4) requires parties to submit their membership registers to INEC no later than 21 days before their respective primaries, congresses or conventions.
Section 77(5) restricts participation in those exercises to members whose names appear in the submitted register. Section 77(6) prohibits parties from using a different membership register for the relevant internal elections.
Section 77(7) establishes a further consequence: a party that fails to submit the required register within the prescribed period is not eligible to field candidates in a general election.
The APC argued that these provisions are binding obligations rather than administrative guidelines parties may ignore when politically convenient.
“Compliance with Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 is not a matter of discretion but a statutory obligation,” the party said.
It urged INEC to act “expeditiously and decisively”, including applying the statutory consequences where the facts establish a breach.
What the Supreme Court Actually Decided
The Supreme Court’s judgment followed a legal challenge by the Zenith Labour Party to provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
On 16 July 2026, the Court of Appeal had nullified Sections 77(5) to 77(7) and Section 84(2), alongside the relevant portion of INEC’s revised timetable for the 2027 general elections.
INEC appealed that decision.
On 24 September, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the commission’s appeal and restored the disputed provisions. The judgment also restored the Federal High Court’s earlier decision dismissing the challenge.
Section 84(2) concerns the methods political parties may use to nominate candidates, including direct primaries or consensus.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning placed internal party democracy at the centre of the dispute. It relied on Section 228 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to establish rules for the conduct of political party primaries, congresses and conventions.
The court also highlighted the problem of established nomination processes being discarded to accommodate wealthy and influential newcomers.
Its concern went to the heart of Nigeria’s candidate-selection system: a party ticket should not become a prize that powerful interests can obtain by overturning a legitimate primary.
The judgment therefore strengthens the legal framework intended to make internal elections transparent and verifiable.
It does not, however, establish that every politician whose membership is disputed has automatically been disqualified from contesting a general election.
That distinction matters.
The court differentiated between a political party’s eligibility to field candidates and an individual’s constitutional qualification for office. The express sanction under Section 77(7) concerns the party’s failure to submit its register within the required period.
Where a party submitted a register but a candidate’s name is missing, the legal questions surrounding that candidate’s participation in the primary must not simply be treated as identical to a failure by the party to submit any register.
INEC must apply the relevant provisions according to their terms and the facts established in each case.
The Overlooked Fact: INEC Said All 22 Parties Had Filed
One detail substantially changes the context of the APC’s demand.
In May 2026, INEC announced that all 22 registered political parties had submitted their membership registers by 8 May, two days before the revised 10 May deadline.
The commission said the extension had been granted after political parties raised concerns about the original timetable. It also said the submitted registers would undergo verification.
That announcement means the current controversy cannot responsibly be framed as proof that political parties generally failed to file their registers.
Submission and verification are separate issues.
A party may submit a register, but questions may still arise over its contents, whether a candidate was listed as a member at the relevant time and whether the same register was used during the party’s nomination process.
Those questions require documentary evidence, not merely competing political statements.
For the APC’s request to produce meaningful results, INEC must therefore distinguish between failure to submit a register, failure to use the register submitted and disputes over whether a particular aspirant was eligible to participate in a primary.
These are related compliance issues, but their legal consequences are not necessarily interchangeable.
The commission must also explain how it will reconcile discrepancies between party records, submitted digital registers and the names of candidates produced through the primaries.
INEC Has Announced Its Position, but Verification Remains Crucial
The electoral commission has already indicated that it intends to act on the Supreme Court’s decision.
On 6 October, INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan disclosed that the commission had received the certified true copy of the judgment.
He said the document was being reviewed after the commission received complaints from political parties, aspirants and members of the National Assembly.
Two days later, INEC’s National Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, Mohammed Haruna, said parties that violated the membership register requirements would not be permitted to field candidates in the 2027 elections.
Haruna also rejected the possibility of allowing an affected party to benefit from its breach by substituting another candidate.
Explaining the commission’s position, he said: “If their names are not on the party register, they were not members of the party at the time that they contested for those tickets.”
The statement signals a potentially strict enforcement approach. It also makes a transparent explanation of the applicable legal tests more important.
The Supreme Court judgment did not adjudicate the merits of every individual nomination. Neither did it establish that every publicly disputed name was missing from an authentic register or that every party had breached the law.
Those matters require verification.
Media speculation about the eligibility of particular candidates should therefore not be confused with a final finding by INEC or a court.
The commission’s challenge is to turn the judgment into a consistent, evidence-based process that can withstand legal scrutiny.
What INEC Must Prove Before Applying Sanctions
The APC’s intervention creates an opportunity for the electoral commission to establish a clearer public record of compliance ahead of the next election cycle.
First, INEC should establish the submission status of each registered political party, including the actual date each register was received and its relationship to the relevant primary, congress or convention.
Second, it should establish which version of each register is the official version. Where electronic submissions have been amended, the commission should be able to identify the relevant records and explain how changes were handled.
Third, the commission should distinguish between party-wide non-submission and disputes concerning the membership status of individual aspirants. The legal basis for each decision should be clearly stated.
Fourth, parties and affected aspirants should receive a fair opportunity to respond to specific allegations, subject to the applicable law and electoral deadlines.
Finally, INEC should publish clear findings explaining what it has verified, what remains disputed and what consequences follow from established violations.
Transparency does not require the public release of sensitive personal information contained in membership databases. It requires an auditable process, documented decisions and sufficient information for legitimate scrutiny.
Without those safeguards, strict enforcement could become another source of political controversy rather than a means of resolving it.
Why the Rule Matters Beyond the APC
The APC cited Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires Supreme Court decisions to be enforced throughout the federation by all authorities and persons, as well as subordinate courts.
Its argument is that INEC, having been a party to the case, has a constitutional obligation to give effect to the judgment.
The party also relied on Ardo v Nyako (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1416) 591, a case concerning political party nominations and the limits of party discretion.
The wider implication is that party leadership cannot claim unrestricted authority over candidate selection when legislation prescribes how nominations must be conducted.
Yet the same standard must apply within the ruling party itself.
APC’s demand for strict enforcement would carry greater democratic weight if the resulting process were demonstrably even-handed, including where scrutiny affects its own candidates or those of its allies.
The purpose of electoral regulation is not to give one party an advantage over its opponents. It is to establish rules that all political parties must obey.
For aspirants, a genuine register system could help protect their right to participate in a lawful primary. For party members, it could make membership rights more verifiable. For voters, it could reduce the likelihood that candidates emerge through opaque substitutions or disputed nomination processes.
But none of those benefits is automatic. They depend on the quality of the records and the fairness of the enforcement process.
The Real Test Before the 2027 Elections
The Supreme Court has settled the constitutional validity of the disputed provisions. The remaining task is to implement the law without confusing allegations with evidence or administrative decisions with judicial findings.
The APC wants INEC to verify compliance and apply the prescribed consequences. The commission has said it will enforce the judgment and has already announced that political parties submitted their registers earlier in the year.
The next step should be to demonstrate what the verification established.
Can INEC show that the relevant records were submitted on time? Can it establish that the correct registers were used? Can it explain the legal consequences of any discrepancy? And can it apply the same standard to every party, including the APC?
Those are the questions that will determine whether Section 77 becomes a meaningful safeguard for internal party democracy.
The credibility of the 2027 elections will not be measured by how forcefully parties demand enforcement against their rivals. It will be measured by whether the law is applied consistently, supported by verifiable evidence and open to legitimate scrutiny.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.