LEGAL OPINION
Abuja, Nigeria — A constitutional debate is emerging over provisions in the Electoral Act 2026 which purport to disqualify a candidate from contesting elections on the basis that his or her political party failed to submit or maintain a digital membership register.
In a detailed legal opinion, Hon. C.I.D. Maduabum, LL.M, argues that such a provision amounts to an unconstitutional expansion of disqualification grounds not contemplated by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
According to the opinion, the supremacy of the Constitution is unequivocal. Section 1(1) and (3) establishes that the Constitution prevails over all other laws, and any inconsistent law is void to the extent of its inconsistency. The argument maintains that qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices are exhaustively provided for in the Constitution and cannot be expanded by statute or administrative regulation.
Citing judicial precedent, the opinion references the Supreme Court’s decision in , where the Court held that the (INEC) lacks the authority to disqualify a candidate who meets constitutional requirements. The Court, it notes, affirmed that qualification for office is rooted strictly in constitutional provisions.
The opinion also draws from , where the Supreme Court emphasized that while political parties must comply with statutory requirements concerning primaries, consequences flow from nomination validity — not from the creation of new constitutional disqualifications.
Further reliance is placed on , in which the apex court reaffirmed that neither the legislature nor INEC can impose restrictions that undermine constitutional rights to political participation beyond what the Constitution expressly permits.
The central judicial principle, according to Maduabum, is consistent: where the Constitution has spoken, neither the National Assembly nor an electoral authority may enlarge or amend it through ordinary legislation.
While acknowledging that regulation of party administration — including record-keeping obligations — is permissible, the opinion argues that disqualifying a constitutionally qualified candidate solely because a party failed to upload or maintain a digital membership register crosses the line into unconstitutional territory.
“Democracy cannot be defended by weakening constitutional guarantees,” the opinion concludes. “The right to contest elections, subject only to constitutional limitations, remains a core democratic right. The Constitution cannot be amended by stealth through subsidiary legislation.”
The legal argument signals a potential constitutional challenge should the disputed provision be enforced, setting the stage for what could become a landmark judicial review ahead of the 2027 electoral cycle.
