By Stephen Simon
The recent Supreme Court judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) has restored the validity of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 but does not automatically disqualify candidates whose nominations may be challenged, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr M. O. Ubani, has said.
Ubani, in a legal analysis of the judgment, said the apex court had set aside the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal and restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act, which the lower court had declared unconstitutional.
According to him, the provisions require political parties to comply with statutory requirements concerning membership registers and the nomination of candidates. However, he stressed that the restoration of the provisions should not be interpreted as a blanket disqualification of candidates who were not parties to the litigation.
Ubani said Sections 29 and 88 of the Electoral Act provide judicial procedures for challenging the nomination of candidates. He noted that Section 88(2) permits an aspirant who participated in a party primary to approach the Federal High Court over alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act or a party’s guidelines, while Section 88(3) provides for exclusion from an election where a court finds the alleged non-compliance established.
He also cited Section 29, which governs the submission and publication of candidates’ names by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), arguing that the commission cannot unilaterally disqualify a candidate after nomination where the law requires judicial determination. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dingyadi & Anor v. INEC & 2 Ors (No. 2), while acknowledging that the case was decided under the Electoral Act 2006.
The legal practitioner further pointed to Section 33 of the 2026 Act, which restricts the substitution of candidates already submitted under Section 29, except in circumstances such as death or withdrawal and subject to the prescribed procedure.
Ubani said the Supreme Court’s decision would also affect pending cases, but would not automatically extinguish them. He stressed that courts would still have to consider when a cause of action arose, whether the claimant had the legal standing to sue, whether the action was filed within the constitutional 14-day period for pre-election matters, and the precise relief being sought.
He said the key implication of the judgment was that while the Supreme Court had settled the validity of Sections 77 and 84, the question of whether an individual candidate should be disqualified or excluded remained a matter to be determined by a competent court on the facts of each case.
