Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, has described the September 24, 2026, Supreme Court judgment in the case involving the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) as a landmark decision that has restored statutory discipline to Nigeria’s political process.
Kalejaye, in an analysis titled “The Myth of Absolute Autonomy: How the Supreme Court Banished Political Nomadism,” argued that political parties cannot rely on constitutional guarantees of internal autonomy to disregard statutory requirements governing party administration and candidate nominations.
According to him, the Supreme Court’s decision has reaffirmed the supremacy of electoral legislation and imposed greater discipline on political parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.
He said the apex court, sitting as a seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro, restored Sections 77(5), (6), (7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after overturning the July 16, 2026, judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Kalejaye noted that the dispute originated from a suit filed by the ZLP at the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenging the validity of the provisions on the grounds that they infringed on the constitutional autonomy of political parties.
He said the Federal High Court, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/509/2026, dismissed the challenge on May 5, 2026, but the Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the decision.
According to him, the appellate judgment created uncertainty around the regulatory framework governing party membership registers and nominations at a critical stage of preparations for the 2027 elections.
“The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and fully reinstated the trial court’s order,” Kalejaye stated, adding that the apex court also awarded ₦2 million in costs against the respondents.
The SAN further argued that the judgment could have significant implications for candidates who changed political parties or participated in nomination processes without complying with statutory registration and membership requirements.
He particularly highlighted the importance of the timelines prescribed under the Electoral Act and the constitutional provisions governing pre-election disputes.
Kalejaye contended that the Supreme Court’s decision raises important legal questions regarding the computation of the 14-day limitation period for pre-election cases under Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, especially for disputes arising during the period when the Court of Appeal judgment was in force.
He suggested that there could be legal arguments for treating the period affected by the appellate judgment as suspended, relying on the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit — that an act of the court should prejudice no one.
The SAN also maintained that compliance with statutory requirements relating to party membership registers remains central to the validity of nominations.
He argued that the restored provisions could help curb practices involving the alleged manipulation of membership registers and the creation of phantom delegates during party primaries.
“By standardizing these rules, the court has significantly narrowed the room for political godfathers to subvert the willpower of ordinary party members,” Kalejaye said.
He, however, noted that the judgment could expose the nominations and political ambitions of some prominent candidates to fresh legal scrutiny ahead of the 2027 elections.
Kalejaye concluded that the effectiveness of the Supreme Court’s intervention would ultimately depend on the willingness and capacity of INEC to enforce the restored statutory requirements consistently and without favour.
