By Kunle Kalejaye
For too long, Nigerian political parties have misconstrued the constitutional guarantee of internal autonomy as an absolute license for procedural lawlessness and unconscionable nomadism. Party administration is treated as an autonomous enclave immune to statutory discipline where anything goes!
The untenable posture of unchecked political nomadism and indiscipline came to a decisive halt on September 24, 2026, when the Supreme Court invoked its powers as the apex court from which there is no appeal to rescue the integrity of the 2027 electoral cycle. The apex court rose in all its majesty to smash the veil of party self-governance as a shield against political harlotry, indiscipline and impunity. The court reinstated mandatory statutory timelines and consequently instilled some level of discipline in how politics is played and regulated. The apex court thus delivered a masterclass in judicial oversight, leaving opportunistic political nomads and perennial cross-carpetters with no legal sanctuary.
The perennial tension between internal party autonomy and the statutory regulatory powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has long been a complex battleground in Nigerian electoral jurisprudence [Ladoja v. INEC 2007]. However, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment has firmly re-anchored the supremacy of statutory compliance and political fidelity.
A unanimous decision was delivered by a seven-member panel, which is the full court. The full court is usually empanelled by appellate courts when serious constitutional matters are in the docket of the court. Led by Justice Adamu Jauro, the apex court in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) fully restored Sections 77(5), (6), (7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, thus reversing an interventionist decision by the Court of Appeal which in saner climes where integrity and political discipline reigns would have been very much appreciated. But here, the Court of Appeal decision in the interim gave rise to political chicanery and infidelity. Political actors saw it as an opportunity to change platforms in a most fundamentally irresponsible manner. It became a case of: here today but there tomorrow! The political air was most fouled by irresponsible lack of basic fidelity to party discipline and loyalty.
The genesis of this appellate challenge traces back to the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/509/2026. The ZLP had sought a declarative order invalidating the contested sections, contending that they constituted an ultra vires infraction upon internal party sovereignty as contemplated under Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution. On May 5, 2026, Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the suit in its entirety, affirming that the National Assembly acted within its clear legislative competence to prescribe statutory safeguards for internal party democracy.
On intermediate appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court on July 16, 2026, voiding the provisions on the ground that statutory dictation of membership registers unconstitutionally fettered party independence. This short-lived appellate intervention created a profound regulatory vacuum precisely as political parties were conducting internal primaries. Recognizing the systemic threat to electoral predictability and an erosion of oversight powers, INEC timeously approached the apex court.
On September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and fully reinstated the trial court’s order. The Supreme Court awarded the Respondents with ₦2 million in costs.
The legal ramifications of this judgment on the proprietary interests of political candidates are severe, particularly regarding the strict computation of limitation periods under Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution. Ordinarily, an aggrieved aspirant must initiate a pre-election action within 14 days from the occurrence of the event complained of. The temporary judicial eclipse of the law between July 16 and September 24 effectively created a state of legal impossibility for litigants seeking to enforce statutory compliance.
By reversing the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court triggered the operation of retroactivity in rem, declaring the law to have been continuously valid since its enactment (Ladoja v. INEC). Consequently, the conditions precedent established under Section 77, requiring the mandatory submission of party registers 21 days prior to primaries, apply retrospectively. Nomadic candidates who defected outside these statutory windows or participated in primary elections while absent from the officially filed registers cannot claim a vested right in an irregular nomination.
Crucially, the decision of the apex court now creates a procedural trap by altering, as it were, the moment a cause of action crystallizes. The classic formulation in Hassan v. Aliyu (2010), that an aggrieved aspirant lacked the requisite locus standi to sue on a voided statute during the interim appellate window appears to have been altered [Hassan v. Aliyu 2010]. Further, the attractive argument that the legal capacity to seek a statutory remedy under Section 84(14) only crystallized upon the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment on September 24, 2026, now appears as a solid legal issue to be addressed. There is the attractive legal argument that the September 24th judgment revives and resets the 14-day constitutional clock ex debito justitiae. In that whatever time left after the July 26th judgment of the Court of Appeal is TOLLED and subsequently released to run.see Sifax v Migfo(2015)
This equitable recalibration finds robust jurisprudential anchor in Amaechi v. INEC (2008), reinforcing the maxim: actus curiae neminem gravabit, that is, the act of the court shall prejudice no man [Amaechi v. INEC 2008].
Compliance with pre-primary registers remains an immutable condition precedent to a valid nomination (Karshi v. Gwagwa) [ 2022]. By reviving the 14-day limitation period from the date of its judgment, the apex court ensures that candidate tickets obtained through opportunistic “ticket shopping” or irregular consensus arrangements under Section 84(2) remain fully justiciable and exposed to terminal litigation.
In sum, this judicial intervention vindicates statutory discipline over political convenience. For legal practitioners and their clients, the judgment elevates technical legal risks exponentially; to survive the revived wave of pre-election challenges, a candidate’s nomination must perfectly mirror both the strict form and the rigid timelines mandated by the Electoral Act.
The true merit of this judicial intervention lies in its enforcement of structural discipline upon political parties, particularly regarding candidate nominations and membership registers. Forcing parties to maintain authentic databases and submit them to INEC at least 30 days prior to primaries directly targets the corrupt practice of manufacturing phantom delegates to hijack electoral tickets. By standardizing these rules, the court has significantly narrowed the room for political godfathers to subvert the willpower of ordinary party members, offering a powerful antidote to the systemic rot that has long compromised internal party politics.
Ultimately, while this judgment has been widely praised for restoring legal sanity, its immediate fallout has plunged several high-profile political ambitions into profound uncertainty. Prominent opposition defectors and frontrunners now face intense legal scrutiny over their registration timelines, ensuring that the road to the 2027 general elections will be defined by rigorous compliance rather than arbitrary maneuvering. While the Supreme Court has successfully provided the necessary legal framework to clear the metaphorical steam of political lawlessness, the ultimate realization of a sanitized democratic process now hinges entirely on INEC’s willingness to enforce these restored powers without fear or favor.
Asiwaju Kalejaye (SAN) is the founder and chairman of Eagle102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu
