a. OUSTER OF COURT’S JURISDICTION IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES

The explicit statutory ouster of jurisdiction in section 83 (5) of the 2026 Act is unprecedented, being a constitutional aberration. The foundation of the exercise of all legislative powers is the Constitution and anything done or any act undertaken outside it will become null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.

The Problems:

Ø The Constitutionality Question:

The constitutionality of Section 83 (5) of the Act which purports to explicitly oust the jurisdiction of courts in respect of the internal affairs of political parties has to be called into question. Section 4 (8) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), (“the Constitution”) restrains the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly from enacting “any law that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law or of a judicial tribunal established by law.” While Section 83 (5) of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of courts, sub-section 6 thereof provides a window of exception to the ouster clause, which should be explored by persons with genuine and actionable grievances, purely for the purpose of achieving political stability and a code of precedents to guide the leadership recruitment process.

The Prospects:

Ø ENSURES NON-INTERRUPTION AND ENHANCES EXPEDITIOUSNESS:

Given the electoral timelines (e.g., primaries within 180 days pre-election as per Section 29 (1), there is absolute necessity for uninterrupted and expeditious disposal of pre-election matters. Judicial restraint by way of undue delays would cause chaos, as seen in pre-2023 (e.g. multiple primaries of the PDP in Zamfara State). This should promote efficiency, as it vests INEC with post-primary remedies whilst still retaining the power of choice in the political parties.

b. Elimination of Indirect Primaries as a Mode of Candidate Nomination:

Under and by virtue of section 84 (2) of the Act, only direct primaries and the consensus modes of nomination of candidates for election by political parties are now obtainable.

The Problems:

Ø Possibility of Elite Domination under the Consensus Mode:

There is a problem with the survival of the consensus arrangement. Though the indirect mode is gone, the consensus method can be deployed in a manner that sidelines the broader membership of a political party. There is a real risk that party elites may impose a preferred candidate under the guise of consensus, thereby undermining the participatory ideals that the exclusion of indirect primaries seeks to promote. In such circumstances, an otherwise unpopular candidate may emerge, not through the collective will of party members, but through the influence and backing of the party’s leadership. This can be a red flag for political stability.

Ø Expensive Electoral Contests:

The Direct Primary is more expensive to organize as it essentially involves all registered members of a political party. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission stated recently that it takes an average sum of twenty billion Naira for a candidate to participate in a governorship primary election. What this means is that the real governorship election itself may cost over one hundred billion Naira and when post-election litigation is added to this huge electoral budget, it simply becomes a monetized process that excludes many citizens.

The Prospects:

Ø Curbs Corrupt Tendencies inherent in the Delegate System:

Delegates, who serve as intermediaries in indirect primaries, have historically been susceptible to undue influence, including financial inducements from aspirants seeking to secure party tickets. This vulnerability has, in many instances, undermined the credibility of the nomination process and weakened internal party democracy.

Ø Grassroots Party Democracy:

The Direct Primaries mode of nomination of candidates for political offices enhances grassroots party democracy and participation in the electoral process right from the earliest stage of the electoral chain. If ideally practiced, it curbs the possibility of elitist dictatorship and imposition of candidates. The statutory recognition of direct primaries represents a notable step toward strengthening internal party democracy. By broadening participation beyond a limited delegate system, direct primaries aim to reduce elite domination, curb candidate imposition, and enhance transparency in the nomination process.

c. Increase in Campaign Expenditure Thresholds:

The Problem:

Monetization of the Electoral Process:

Granted, the economic realities of inflation and currency depreciation is undoubtedly a factor which may have influenced the increment in campaign expenses across the various political office hierarchies, yet it risks amplifying the influence of wealthy individuals in the political process, potentially skewing the playing field in favour of well-funded candidates.

d. Mandatory Deployment of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS)

The Problems:

Ø Poor Network Signals and Cyber Insecurity Issues:

Poor Network Signals could pose a challenge to the effective working of the BVAS for purposes of uploading and retrieval of data. Even in urban locations of Lagos and Abuja, poor network and other telecommunication glitches occur to hinder effective use of technology, much less in the rural areas where on the day of election, this may hinder mass participation.

The Prospects:

Ø Statutory Flavour on BVAS:

Section 47(2) of the Act has now expressly removed the ambiguity created under the Electoral Act, 2022. Any electoral irregularities in the use of BVAS now amount to statutory non-compliance rather than regulatory non-compliance. This eliminates judicial equivocation on the issue as was the case in the 2023 Presidential Election.

Ø Largely Curtails Incidence of Manipulation of Election Results:

Generally, technology is meant to reduce human interference in processes designed to guarantee transparency. The deployment of BVAS for the electoral process, where such is done with pure intentions, should fast track the voting experience and also help to curb the incidences of manipulation of election results.

e. Limited Grounds of Challenging an Election:

The Problems:

Ø Omission of the Ground of Unqualified Candidature:

The 2026 Act left out the long-standing ground of challenging an election, namely, the basis that the returned candidate was not qualified in the first place to contest the election. The constitutionality of this provision has been put in issue given that the Constitution makes copious provisions on qualification, for instance on the qualification of a candidate to vie for the office of President in Section 131 of the Constitution.

1. Failure to Include Provision on Real-Time Transmission of Election Results:

Real-time electronic transmission allows results from polling units to be uploaded immediately to a central database accessible to election officials, political parties, observers, and the public. It has the advantage of guaranteeing transparency, reduction of human interference, public confidence, speed of collation of results and creation of an audit trail. Omission to include express provision in the new Act making electronic transmission of election results mandatory has generated considerable public debate. Many commentators, civil society organizations, election observers, and political stakeholders have expressed concern that the absence of an unequivocal legal framework for electronic transparency and public confidence in election outcomes.

The dangers of election result manipulation are manifold including: alteration during physical movement of result sheets, artificial inflation or suppression of votes for or against preferred or nonpreferred candidates as the case may be, forgery and substitution of authentic result sheets with falsified version, protracted litigation, political instability and eventual anarchy, and resultant voter apathy. People end up eventually asking “why bother? Do our votes count?”

2. Dangers Inherent in Human Factors:

As a fallout to the foregoing, a host of other human factors portent danger to the much-needed electoral reforms. Machines are certainly not perfect but they unarguable reduce vulnerabilities associated with human operations in the context of electoral conducts, which include: bribery and corruption, fatigue and human error, partisanship and favouritism, intimidation and use of brute force, collusion of electoral actors and politicians, loss and destruction of electoral materials, documents/evidence. However, those who argue against wholesale adoption of the electronic transmission model cite limiting factors such as: cybersecurity risks, poor telecommunication coverage in remote areas, cost of nationwide electronic infrastructure, power supply challenge, need for physical result sheets as primary legal record, etc. It is germane to note that on account of the above challenges, election experts have advocated the adoption of a hybrid model as a solution.

3. The Issue of Leadership Recruitment and the Role of the People in the Process.

The mode of appointment of the electoral umpire, the INEC Chairman and National Commissioners has been at the center of the public debate. This is because, apart from laws and technology, credibility and integrity of the electoral system is critically hinged on the perceived independence of the institution administering elections. The greatest criticism is the fact that the appointment process of the INEC Chairman and the Commissioners is heavily influenced by the Executive arm of government since it is the President who nominates the Chairman and Commissioners, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Independence is clearly jeopardized with such a method given the current process of appointment and funding of INEC manpower and its operations. A people-oriented/guided reform has been advocated, including public nomination process, public screening, independent selection committee, legislative transparency, etc. This would at least engender public participation in the selection processes.

CONCLUSION

As stated earlier, there is a need for collation of the resolutions reached at this National Conference for documentation and implementation, given the volume and quality of the presentations and discussions. That way, this will not be another jamboree of all talk without action. As legal practitioners, we owe our people a sacred duty to deploy our knowledge and resources for the good of society always, and this conference has provided a vintage opportunity to actualize it.

Update news