A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has said political parties are required to submit their membership registers to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days before conducting primaries, congresses or conventions.
Maduabuchi, who described the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 as “perfect”, said the decision reaffirmed INEC’s constitutional mandate to organise, undertake and supervise elections.
He spoke in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday while commenting on the September 24 judgment of the apex court, which restored provisions of the Electoral Act dealing with political party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court had unanimously set aside an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal that nullified the provisions and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court.
Under the provisions restored by the apex court, only members whose names are contained in a party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention can participate in the exercise.
The law also requires parties to conduct such exercises using the register submitted to INEC and stipulates consequences where the register is not submitted within the prescribed period.
Maduabuchi said the requirement did not amount to an infringement on the internal affairs of political parties, arguing that INEC needed the registers to establish those eligible to participate in party primaries.
“If you don’t submit the register, you will not have candidates. We must interpret the decision of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis the provisions of the Constitution which gave INEC the power to organise, undertake and supervise elections.
“So, if INEC must organise and the law says give them your membership register, I don’t think there is anything unconstitutional about that,” he said.
According to him, political parties retain the power to determine their membership, while INEC’s role is to obtain the register after the parties have made those determinations.
“It does not determine who is a member of a political party. Determination of who is a member of a political party is in the hands of the political parties.
“But when you have decided who is your political party, tell me who they are. So, when I am organising my election, I will know who I am dealing with. That is just a simple thing the Supreme Court said,” he added.
Maduabuchi also said parties remained at liberty to determine the method through which their candidates would emerge, provided they complied with the law.
He said candidates could emerge through direct primaries or consensus, stressing that the process must be conducted openly.
“When you want to select or however, whatever you call it, your candidates, do it openly so that everybody will see what you have done, either directly or by consensus.
“These are the two things that the Supreme Court said. Anybody saying they are unconstitutional is wrong,” he said.
The SAN further said the judgment could have consequences for political actors who took steps based on the earlier Court of Appeal ruling, noting that the Supreme Court decision was delivered by a seven-member panel.
“And if anybody had acted pursuant to the Court of Appeal decision, it would be unfortunate, because they are now caught by this Supreme Court decision.
“And it is a judgment of the full court. Seven justices. In other words, you need seven justices to set it aside,” he said.
Maduabuchi also rejected the argument that the judgment eroded the autonomy of political parties.
“I don’t seem to agree with you. Because it does not tell you how you become a member of a political party. The Supreme Court never said anything about that,” he said.
On direct primaries, he argued that the option could help reduce the influence of money in the nomination process by limiting the ability of influential individuals to control delegates.
“The reason is very simple. We want to wipe out money politics from Nigeria. If you have delegates, big men buy up the delegates and the will of the masses, the will of the people does not prevail.
“But when they say everybody should come out and elect the candidate of their choice, even though it has its own shortfalls, but I think it accounts more with democracy than by using delegates, which has been the position before,” he said.
On the 21-day notice, Maduabuchi said the requirement only obliged parties to notify INEC in advance and did not give the commission authority to determine how parties should conduct their internal affairs.
“If you want to elect, you decide how you want to elect, you decide who your chairman is, you decide who your members are.
“The law says if you have made that decision, tell me 21 days before you do your primary, let me know who your members are. That is not interfering with anybody’s internal affairs,” he said.
He further argued that the 21-day requirement was not a new provision that should have caught political parties unprepared, saying the legislation had been passed earlier in the year and was known to political actors.
“No, it is not. It is not sudden. The law was made and I think it was passed early this year and everybody knew what the law was. That is why they even went to court to challenge it,” he said.
He also noted that the issue of giving INEC advance notice of party primaries had featured in previous electoral disputes.
“The question of 21 days’ notice to INEC has been there. I think I raised it first in 2011 or 2012. I said they didn’t give enough notice and I went to court. So the question of 21 days is not new at all,” he said.
On whether the Supreme Court judgment would have a retrospective effect on candidates whose parties had already conducted their primaries, Maduabuchi said the applicable law would depend on the circumstances and the legal position at the time the relevant action took place.
“The judgment takes effect the day the suit was filed. And what we are declaring is the law as it is today. What was the position of the law as it was when they took, when the primaries were conducted? That is the law you’re interpreting.
“If the law is as the Supreme Court has said it is today, that is the law that will apply. It is not a matter of retrospective or not prospective,” he said.
He, however, declined to say whether specific politicians, including Chinda, a Kwara Central senatorial aspirant or Peter Obi, would be affected by the judgment, saying such a determination would require access to the relevant party records.
“Chinda is not on the ballot. No, I cannot say that because one, I don’t know when he joined the political party. Two, I don’t know when they sent the register to INEC.
“These are two very important things. Actually, I don’t know whether the name of Chinda is in the register of political parties submitted by APC,” he said.
He similarly cautioned against drawing conclusions about Obi and other politicians without examining the relevant registers and submission dates.
“I cannot now get up and say Chinda is no longer, will not be on the ballot. The Kwara Central senatorial aspirant will not be on the ballot. Peter Obi who left ADC for NDC, I can’t say that because I’ve not seen their registers.
“I don’t know when they submitted them and I don’t know what names are there,” he said.
Leave a Reply