Legal Practitioner Clarifies Supreme Court Judgment, Says It Will Not Automatically Affect Kwara Candidates
An Ilorin-born legal practitioner, Taofiq Olateju, Esq., has offered a legal interpretation of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on political party membership registers and candidate nomination, saying the decision should not be interpreted as automatically affecting politicians who recently defected and emerged as candidates of other political parties in Kwara State.
Olateju said the interpretation of the judgment circulating on social media does not, in his view, accurately reflect its legal effect, stressing that the decision must be considered within the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, September 24, 2026, upheld an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) against the Court of Appeal judgment which had voided provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to political party membership registers and candidate nomination.
The apex court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case involving the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court, which had earlier dismissed the party’s constitutional challenge.
The dispute centred on Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
Sections 77(5) to 77(7) prescribe requirements relating to political parties’ membership registers, including the register to be submitted to INEC and used for party primaries, congresses and conventions. Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods of nominating candidates by political parties.
The ZLP had challenged the provisions on the grounds that they were inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and amounted to unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
However, the Supreme Court held that the disputed provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution and consequently restored the position of the Federal High Court. The apex court also awarded N2 million in costs against the ZLP.
What the Judgment Means for Candidates
Explaining the possible implications of the judgment, Olateju said the decision should not be interpreted as an automatic cancellation of nominations involving politicians who recently moved from one political party to another.
According to him, the effect of the judgment on any particular candidate would depend on the facts surrounding the candidate’s membership, the relevant party’s membership register, the nomination process and compliance with the applicable electoral requirements.
The restored provisions place particular emphasis on the membership register submitted to INEC. Section 77(5) provides that only persons whose names are contained in the register submitted to the commission within the prescribed period are eligible to participate in the relevant party exercise, while Section 77(6) requires parties to use the submitted register for their primaries, congresses and conventions. Section 77(7) also contains consequences for a party that fails to submit its membership register as required.
Olateju therefore maintained that documentary evidence could become important in determining disputes over party membership and nominations, rather than relying solely on political declarations concerning defection or membership.
Judgment Does Not Automatically Nullify PDP Nominations
The legal practitioner further argued that it would be an overreach to conclude that the Supreme Court judgment has automatically nullified the nominations of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidates who emerged through subsequent nomination processes.
He explained that where a particular nomination is challenged, the circumstances surrounding that nomination would have to be examined, including the applicable membership register, the process through which the candidate emerged and compliance with the relevant statutory requirements.
He stressed that the Supreme Court’s judgment in the ZLP-INEC matter should not be treated as a blanket judicial order cancelling nominations conducted by other political parties.
According to Olateju, until a court of competent jurisdiction specifically sets aside a particular nomination or makes an enforceable order affecting it, the Supreme Court judgment should not, by itself, be interpreted as an automatic cancellation of such nomination.
He said this distinction was important in understanding the legal implications of the judgment for political actors in Kwara State, particularly against the various interpretations circulating on social media.
Other Appeals
The Supreme Court also delivered judgments in separate appeals involving the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Youth Party against INEC.
The apex court dismissed the SDP’s appeal on its merits, while the Youth Party’s appeal was struck out after the court upheld INEC’s preliminary objection concerning the competence and timing of the appeal.
The judgments have consequently restored the statutory framework governing political party membership registers and candidate nomination under the Electoral Act 2026 as parties prepare for the 2027 general elections.