2027: Senate rules out fresh review of Electoral Act

The Senate has decided to leave the Electoral Act 2026 unchanged until after the 2027 general elections. Senator Yemi Adaramodu said the National Assembly had completed the electoral reform, and the bill had become law. The decision is meant to preserve a fixed legal framework while parties prepare for the polls.

The practical concern is timing. Parties have already used the law to produce candidates for contests in January and February. Reopening the Act could force parties to adjust membership records, primaries, or nomination procedures after preparations have begun.

The Senate’s position is therefore not that the law can never change. Adaramodu said a review could be considered after the 2027 elections if necessary or if petitions and calls for amendments are submitted. Until then, the restored rules remain in force, following the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Electoral Act is legislation that establishes rules for conducting elections and organizing key party activities. In this article, its importance comes from provisions governing political party membership registers and candidate nominations. It gives the election system a common legal framework instead of leaving those matters entirely to individual parties.

For example, Sections 77(5), 77(6), and 77(7) require relevant party members to appear on the register submitted to INEC before participating in primaries, congresses, or conventions. Section 84(2) identifies direct primaries and consensus as permitted nomination methods. These rules connect internal party decisions with statutory requirements.

The Act matters because parties are preparing candidates under it for the 2027 elections. The Supreme Court restored the challenged provisions, while the Senate rejected changes before the polls. Any broader review is expected only after the election, according to Senator Yemi Adaramodu.

The Supreme Court restored four challenged provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. They are Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2). Their restoration matters because they set statutory conditions for important stages of party organization and candidate selection before the 2027 elections.

The first three sections concern membership registers. They restrict participation in party primaries, congresses, and conventions to members whose names appear on the register submitted to INEC. Section 84(2) addresses candidate nominations by recognizing direct primaries and consensus as permissible methods.

The provisions had been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal after a Zenith Labour Party suit. A unanimous seven-member Supreme Court panel overturned that decision and restored the rules. This means the membership-register requirements and nomination methods remain part of the legal framework parties are using.

The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal because it affirmed the Electoral Act’s statutory authority to regulate party membership registers and candidate nomination methods. The apex court rejected the earlier conclusion that Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2) were unconstitutional. Its judgment restored those provisions for the 2027 electoral process.

The dispute began with a suit by the Zenith Labour Party. The Court of Appeal had voided the provisions after the party argued that the requirements interfered unconstitutionally with internal party administration. The Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion in a unanimous judgment delivered by a seven-member panel.

The ruling also set aside the Court of Appeal’s nullification of parts of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s timetable for the 2027 elections. As a result, the statutory membership and nomination rules, along with the affected timetable provisions, remain operative while parties prepare for the polls.

The restored law creates a possible legal vulnerability for candidates whose party membership records, waivers, or nomination processes do not comply with its requirements. The article says those matters could face legal scrutiny after the Supreme Court revived the challenged provisions. It does not announce a blanket cancellation of candidates or specify a single penalty.

The clearest example concerns membership registers. Sections 77(5), 77(6), and 77(7) limit participation in primaries, congresses, and conventions to members whose names appear on the register submitted to INEC. A candidate selected through a process involving an ineligible participant could therefore attract a challenge. Section 84(2) also governs the permitted nomination methods.

For now, parties must operate under the restored framework during preparations for 2027. The Senate will not reopen the law before the elections, so disputes are more likely to be addressed through petitions or legal proceedings rather than an immediate legislative rewrite.

In this dispute, the National Assembly has authority to make the electoral framework. Senator Yemi Adaramodu said it passed the electoral bill into law and that the legislative process was complete. The Senate therefore controls whether the statute is amended, although it says no review will happen before the 2027 elections.

The courts interpret the law. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal and affirmed that the Electoral Act can regulate party membership registers and nomination methods. INEC is involved because parties submit membership registers to it, and the ruling also addressed parts of INEC’s timetable for the 2027 elections. Political parties must use the statutory framework in their internal processes.

These roles explain the present position. The Supreme Court restored the provisions, while the National Assembly declined to change them during preparations. Parties must comply with the restored rules, and any challenge can be brought through petitions or court proceedings under the existing framework.

Direct primaries and consensus are two ways a political party can select a candidate. In a direct primary, eligible party members vote among contenders. In a consensus process, the relevant party participants agree on a candidate instead of holding a contested vote. The article identifies both as permissible methods under Section 84(2).

Their importance is practical and democratic. A direct primary can give members a direct role in choosing the person who will represent the party. Consensus can provide an agreed selection when party participants accept one candidate. In either case, the method matters because it shows how a party reached its nomination decision and whether it followed the law.

The Supreme Court restored Section 84(2), so these methods remain part of the 2027 framework. Parties have already used the law to produce candidates, and the Senate says it will not change the rules before the elections. Any review comes afterward.