The Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark judgment striking down two critical provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, dealing a significant blow to the legal framework that has governed political party primaries and membership registers in Nigeria. In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through the political establishment, the court held that Sections 84(13) and 84(14) of the Act are unconstitutional because they conflict with Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution. The decision, delivered on a date that will be etched in the annals of Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence, effectively voids the legal basis for the Independent National Electoral Commission's oversight of internal party processes.
The Legal Challenge and the Court's Reasoning
The appeal was brought by a coalition of 38 political parties, including the African Democratic Congress and the Social Democratic Party, along with 16 individual candidates who had been disqualified from primaries due to register disputes. They argued that the disputed sections of the Electoral Act improperly expanded the powers of INEC beyond what the constitution permits. Specifically, the appellants contended that Section 84(13), which required parties to submit their membership registers to INEC at least 30 days before primaries, and Section 84(14), which mandated INEC supervision of all primary elections, infringed on the constitutional rights of political parties to organize their internal affairs. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that both sections were invalid because they sought to regulate matters that the constitution reserves exclusively for political parties.
In its 147-page judgment, the court emphasized that Sections 221 and 222 of the constitution provide that political parties have the right to form, organize, and govern themselves, subject only to the provisions of the constitution itself. The court held that the Electoral Act, being a statute, cannot override the constitution. Therefore, any provision that attempts to impose external control over party primaries or membership registers must give way to the supreme law. This reasoning aligns with the principle of constitutional supremacy enshrined in Section 1(3) of the constitution. The lead judgment, delivered by Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, cited the Supreme Court's decision in A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation (2002) as precedent, where it was held that the constitution is the grundnorm and any law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Implications for Political Parties and INEC
The ruling has immediate and far-reaching consequences. Political parties are now free to conduct their primaries without the mandatory supervision of INEC, and they are no longer required to submit their membership registers to the commission. For example, the All Progressives Congress (APC) had, in its 2022 primaries, submitted a register of 7.2 million members to INEC; under the new ruling, such submissions are no longer obligatory. This could lead to a more decentralized and party-driven primary process, but it also raises concerns about transparency and internal democracy. Without INEC's oversight, there is a risk that party leaders may manipulate primaries to favor preferred candidates, undermining the spirit of democratic participation. In the 2023 elections, INEC deployed 1,500 monitors to oversee primaries across 18 parties; now that mechanism is gone.
For INEC, the judgment strips away a key tool for ensuring compliance with electoral laws. The commission had relied on these provisions to monitor party activities and maintain a central database of party members. As of 2023, INEC's register contained over 95 million entries from 18 political parties. Now, INEC must reassess its role in the electoral process, focusing on its constitutional mandate of conducting elections rather than regulating internal party affairs. The commission has not yet issued an official response, but legal experts expect an appeal to the Supreme Court. INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, previously stated that the commission would abide by court orders, but sources within the commission indicate that a review of the judgment is underway.
The Broader Context: Constitutional vs. Statutory Authority
This case highlights the tension between statutory regulation and constitutional autonomy. The Electoral Act, passed by the National Assembly and signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari on February 25, 2022, sought to bring order and transparency to party primaries, which have historically been plagued by irregularities. For instance, during the 2019 elections, over 200 primary disputes were litigated, many arising from allegations of register manipulation and lack of INEC supervision. However, the constitution grants political parties a degree of self-governance that the Act may have overstepped. The Court of Appeal's decision reaffirms the primacy of the constitution and serves as a check on legislative overreach.
Critics of the judgment, including the Nigerian Bar Association's Section on Public Interest and Development Law, argue that it could weaken Nigeria's electoral system, which already struggles with issues of vote buying, thuggery, and lack of internal democracy. They point to the fact that many party primaries are conducted in opaque manners, with little accountability. For example, in the 2022 PDP primaries in Rivers State, there were allegations of register padding, with claims that 150,000 ghost members were added. Without INEC's involvement, they fear that the process may become even more susceptible to manipulation. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that the ruling restores the rightful balance of power between parties and the state, allowing parties to innovate and self-regulate. The Chairman of the Inter-Party Advisory Council, Yabagi Sani, praised the judgment, stating that it empowers parties to design their own internal democratic processes.
What Happens Next?
The immediate effect is that the Electoral Act's provisions on primaries and membership registers are null and void. However, the judgment is subject to appeal. The Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), and INEC have 90 days from the date of judgment to file an appeal at the Supreme Court. Until then, political parties are advised to conduct their affairs in line with the constitution and their own constitutions. The National Assembly may also consider amending the Electoral Act to bring it in line with the court's ruling, but any new provisions must respect constitutional boundaries. In the interim, parties like the APC and PDP have announced they will proceed with their planned congresses and primaries under their own guidelines, without INEC supervision.
In summary, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Sections 84(13) and 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022 are unconstitutional because they conflict with Sections 221 and 222 of the Nigerian constitution, which guarantee political parties the right to self-governance. This means that INEC can no longer mandate supervision of party primaries or require submission of membership registers. The decision is a significant legal victory for parties seeking greater autonomy, but it also poses risks to electoral transparency and integrity. As Nigeria prepares for the 2027 general elections, the political landscape is now fundamentally altered, with parties having more freedom but also more responsibility to ensure their internal processes are fair and democratic.