All Progressives Congress (APC) has asked Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enforce the Supreme Court judgment on the submission and use of political parties’ membership registers for primaries, congresses and conventions.
The party, in a letter dated Oct. 9 and signed by its National Chairman, Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, and National Secretary, Sen. Surajudeen Basiru, called for the application of the legal consequences for non-compliance.
This, it said, included barring any defaulting party from fielding candidates in the general elections.
The judgment was delivered on Sept. 24 in INEC v Zenith Labour Party (Suit No. SC/CV/495/2026).
NAN also reports that the judgment affirmed section 77 of the 2026 Electoral Act and set aside the Court of Appeal judgment which declared sections 77(5) to (7) and 84(2) of the Act and Activity Serial Number Two of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general elections unconstitutional.
APC asked INEC to enforce the judgment in accordance with its terms and legal effect and to verify if each party submitted its digital membership register within the statutory period.
It also asked INEC to apply the consequences under section 77(7) and ensure that only members on the register submitted to the commission vote and are voted for in internal party elections.
The party pointed to section 77(4), which provides that “each political party shall make such register available to INEC not later than 21 days before the slated date for the party primaries, congresses or conventions.
It added that section 77(5) specifically provided that only members whose names were contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.
“Section 77(6) bars a party from using any register other than the one submitted to INEC,” the party said.
It added that the Supreme Court, at page 24 of the judgment, explained that the practical legal effect of section 77(7) was that a party that failed to submit its digital membership register within the prescribed period might be precluded from fielding candidates in the general elections.
It argued that this interpretation demonstrated the mandatory character of the statutory requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance by political parties.
“The court said at pages 25 and 26 that the objective of section 77 is to ensure that parties adhere to internal democracy through the fair, transparent and verifiable conduct of primaries, congresses, and conventions.
“The court relied on section 228(a) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to make laws on internal party democracy, and on its earlier decision in Ardo v Nyako (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1416) 591.
“The court held that although the power to nominate candidates resides with the parties, the procedure for the nomination is not left to the whims and caprices of party officials,” the letter read in parts.
The party noted that on page 34, the Supreme Court observed that parties had been given sufficient time by INEC to submit their registers.
“Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for any political party to breach the deadline imposed by law,” it stated, adding that INEC was the appellant in the suit and was therefore bound by the judgment.
APC cited section 287(1) of the constitution, which provided that “The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.
“As a political party, we insist that compliance with section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026 is not a matter of discretion but a statutory obligation whose interpretation has been authoritatively addressed by the Supreme Court,” the party said.
It warned that allowing political parties to disregard the prescribed statutory requirements without the application of the consequences stipulated by law might undermine the objectives of internal party democracy.
APC added that such action might undermine electoral transparency and the rule of law.
