By Mustapha Babalola Toheeb
I. Introduction
Nigeria’s party primary elections have long been regarded as the most contested, and least regulated, stage of the democratic process. For decades, the nomination of candidates by political parties was marked by delegate manipulation, parallel congresses, illegal exclusions of aspirants, and brazen substitutions of validly elected candidates. The repealed Electoral Act No. 13 of 2022 made modest inroads into these pathologies, but its toleration of indirect (delegate) primaries and its ambiguous framework for judicial oversight left significant room for abuse.[1]
As at the time of writing this essay, the political parties have begun to make preparations for their upcoming party primaries which means this piece is coming out at the perfect time, I hope it serves as a guide to those who will be engaging in the selection process and everyone involved in the primary election process for our various political parties.
The Electoral Act, 2026 attempts a more radical reconfiguration of our electioneering process. Its primary elections provisions concentrated principally in sections 77, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88 create a regime of direct democratic participation, enhanced state oversight, and carefully delimited judicial remedies. Understanding these provisions is essential not only for aspirants, party officials, and legal practitioners navigating the 2027 electoral season, but also for scholars of comparative constitutional law and democratic governance.
This paper proceeds in five parts. Part II examines the mandatory conduct of party primaries and the abolition of indirect delegate voting. Part III analyses the membership register requirements and their implications for aspirant eligibility. Part IV addresses the notice and monitoring framework. Part V explores the prohibition on extra-constitutional nomination criteria and the restriction on political appointees. Part VI examines the remedial architecture which is the right of aggrieved aspirants, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and the prohibition on courts halting primaries.
II. Mandatory Party Primaries and the Abolition of Indirect Voting
Section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 provides that every political party “seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions,” and that such primaries “shall be monitored by the Commission.” The language is mandatory, not permissive, and its scope is universal: it applies to every elective position from the Presidency to local councillorship.[2]
More consequential is section 84(2), which states that “the procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct primaries or consensus.” The phrase “direct primaries or consensus” carries significant technical meaning. It eliminates the third mode of nomination that had been available under the repealed 2022 Act which is indirect primaries conducted by delegates. Under the delegate system, aspirants routinely offered cash and material benefits to influence the votes of often small numbers of party delegates at congresses and conventions. By confining valid nomination to direct voting by all registered party members or genuine consensus, the legislature has removed the primary institutional mechanism for monetised candidate selection.[3]
Section 86 provides that “all direct primaries shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines of each political party,” preserving a degree of internal party autonomy in procedural design.
2.1 The Consensus Candidate Procedure
Sections 87(1) through 87(3) create a carefully scaffolded procedure for the adoption of consensus candidates. Under section 87(1), a party that elects the consensus route must “secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate.” The requirement of written consent from all cleared aspirants, as opposed to a mere majority, prevents the practice of imposing a consensus candidate over the objections of competing aspirants.[4]
Where written consent cannot be secured from all aspirants, section 87(2) mandates a reversion to direct primaries. This is a structural safeguard against manufactured consensus; a party cannot bypass the primaries by obtaining the consent of a compliant majority while sidelining a dissenting minority. Section 87(3) further requires that “a special convention or nomination congress shall be held to ratify the choice of consensus candidates at designated centres at the National, State, Senatorial, Federal and State Constituencies,” adding a further layer of formal democratic validation even in the consensus track.[5]
III. The Membership Register Requirement
Among the most operationally consequential innovations of the Electoral Act, 2026, is the digital membership register framework in section 77. Section 77(2) mandates that “a party shall maintain a digital register of its members containing the name, sex, date of birth, address, State, Local Government, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number and photograph in both hard and soft copies.” The inclusion of the National Identification Number links party membership to the national biometric database, making fraudulent registration significantly more difficult.[6]
Section 77(4) requires every political party to submit this register to INEC “not later than 21 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or conventions.” Section 77(5) then provides that “only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions,” and section 77(6) categorically prohibits the use of “any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission.”[7]
The cumulative effect of these provisions is that the membership register is effectively frozen 21 days before any primary. An aspirant who is not on the frozen register cannot contest a primary, and any candidate whose name is not on that register cannot be validly nominated. This has particular significance for late-switching political actors: a candidate who loses a primary in one party cannot contest another party’s primary if their name does not appear on that party’s pre-submitted register.[8]
Section 77(7) provides the ultimate sanction when it stated that a party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for that election. The sanction is not directed at the aspirant but at the party itself. The practical consequence is total exclusion from the relevant election, a significant deterrent against the careless or strategic withholding of membership data.
IV. INEC Monitoring and the Notice Requirement
The Electoral Act, 2026 establishes a two-pronged mechanism for state oversight of party primaries: mandatory advance notice and active INEC monitoring. Section 82(1) requires every registered political party to give INEC “at least 21 days’ notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of… nominating candidates for any of the elective offices.” Section 82(2) specifies that the notice must include “the date, time, venue, and names of the members of the congress, convention or conference committee as spelt out in the party’s constitution.”[9]
