APC Asks INEC to Enforce Supreme Court Ruling on Party Registers

Introduction

Nigeria's debate over political-party membership registers has moved from the courtroom to the question of implementation. On 9 October 2026, the All Progressives Congress (APC) asked the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enforce the Supreme Court's decision upholding disputed provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. The request brings renewed attention to the rules parties must follow when compiling membership registers and conducting primaries, congresses and conventions ahead of the 2027 general elections.

1. What happened?

According to reports published on 9 October by The Guardian and Vanguard, the APC wrote to INEC seeking implementation of the Supreme Court ruling in the dispute involving INEC and the Zenith Labour Party. The party asked the commission to verify whether political parties submitted their digital membership registers within the statutory period and to apply the consequences provided by law where non-compliance is established. It also called for enforcement of the rules limiting participation in party internal elections to eligible members listed on the register submitted to INEC, and preventing the use of a different register for those exercises.

2. Background to the court dispute

The litigation concerned sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. These provisions address, respectively, participation by members listed in a submitted register, the use of that register for party internal elections, the consequence of failing to submit the register on time, and the methods available for nominating candidates. The Zenith Labour Party challenged the constitutionality of the provisions. The Court of Appeal had set them aside, but the Supreme Court later allowed INEC's appeal and restored the earlier Federal High Court decision, according to multiple news reports.

3. What the provisions require

Section 77(4) requires a political party to make its membership register available to INEC not later than 21 days before the date fixed for its primaries, congresses or conventions. Section 77(5) ties eligibility to participate in those exercises to the names appearing in the submitted register. Section 77(6) bars a party from using another register for those exercises. Section 77(7) provides a serious consequence for a party that fails to submit its register within the required period: it is not eligible to field a candidate for the election. Section 84(2) provides for direct primaries or consensus as the procedures for party nominations.

4. The distinction between the judgment and the APC's request

The legal distinction is important. The Supreme Court's ruling, as reported, upheld the validity of the challenged provisions. The APC's letter is a separate political party's request about how INEC should implement the ruling. The letter does not itself determine which parties complied, establish that any particular party is disqualified, or replace the commission's duty to apply the law to the relevant facts. Those conclusions require the applicable records, the statutory framework and any relevant legal process.

5. What INEC has said

On 8 October, INEC National Commissioner Mohammed Haruna said the commission would meet the following week to consider the implications of the judgment. TheCable reported that Haruna said INEC needed to examine the matter before deciding how to proceed, while warning that some parties could face difficulty fielding candidates if the statutory requirements were not met. That statement was an indication of a forthcoming institutional review—not a final determination that any named party had breached the law.

6. Why it matters

The issue matters because party primaries and nomination procedures shape who appears on the ballot. Clear and consistent enforcement can support transparent, verifiable internal party processes. At the same time, any decision with the potential to prevent a party from fielding candidates has substantial consequences and should be grounded in the statute, the relevant evidence and fair procedures. Public discussion should therefore distinguish a party's demand for enforcement from INEC's eventual decision and from any court determination in a future dispute.

7. What to watch next

The immediate question is what INEC decides after reviewing the judgment and the records of parties' submissions. Important points include how the commission verifies submission dates, how it identifies the register that governs a particular internal election, what procedure it will follow where compliance is disputed, and how affected parties may challenge a decision. The certified judgment and any formal INEC guidance should be read directly before drawing conclusions about individual parties or candidates.

Key takeaway

The Supreme Court ruling has restored the legal force of the disputed provisions, according to the available reporting. The APC is now pressing INEC to enforce them. But a request for enforcement is not the same as a completed enforcement decision: the next stage depends on INEC's review and the evidence of compliance in each relevant case.

Sources and verification note

1. The Guardian, "APC asks INEC to enforce Supreme Court ruling on party registers," 9 October 2026: https://guardian.ng/politics/apc-asks-inec-to-enforce-supreme-court-ruling-on-party-registers/

2. Vanguard, "Membership registers: APC writes INEC, demands enforcement of S'Court verdict," 9 October 2026: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2026/10/membership-registers-apc-writes-inec-demands-enforcement-of-scourt-verdict/

3. TheCable, "INEC to decide next week on s'court judgment, says some parties may not field candidates," 8 October 2026: https://www.thecable.ng/inec-to-decide-next-week-on-scourt-judgment-says-some-parties-may-not-field-candidates/

4. Supreme Court of Nigeria, judgment listing for INEC v Zenith Labour Party: https://www.supremecourt.gov.ng/judgment-delivered/518

Verification note: News reports generally describe the Supreme Court decision as delivered on 24 September 2026, while the Supreme Court's online listing displays 23 September 2026. The exact date and formal case number should be checked against the certified judgment before use in formal legal work. This article reports the current implementation debate and does not claim that INEC has made a final enforcement decision.