Human rights lawyer and political commentator Deji Adeyanju has called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to immediately implement the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
Adeyanju’s call followed Thursday’s unanimous decision by a seven-member Supreme Court panel, which restored provisions of the Electoral Act dealing with political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates. The court overturned an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had voided the provisions.
In a statement, Adeyanju urged INEC to remove from its official portal the names of candidates affected by the judgment and take the administrative steps necessary to give effect to the ruling.
“I call on the Independent National Electoral Commission to immediately comply with the decision on the Electoral Act,” Adeyanju said, citing Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
He argued that the constitutional provision requires authorities and individuals to comply with decisions of the Supreme Court, stressing that INEC should implement the judgment without delay or selective application.
The Supreme Court ruling restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The provisions require political parties to maintain and submit membership registers to INEC and prescribe rules governing participation in party primaries and candidate nomination.
Under Section 77(7), a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period faces the statutory consequence of being unable to sponsor a candidate in an election. Section 84(2) also provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods of candidate nomination.
The development is significant as political parties prepare for the 2027 general elections, with compliance with electoral laws potentially affecting candidate eligibility and party participation.
The Supreme Court’s judgment followed a legal challenge by the Zenith Labour Party, which had argued that the disputed provisions interfered with the constitutional rights of political parties. The Federal High Court initially dismissed the challenge before the Court of Appeal partly upheld it. INEC subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which restored the disputed provisions.
