Nomination of candidates: Section 84

Section 84(1) requires political parties seeking to nominate candidates to conduct primaries for aspirants to elective positions, subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 84(2) provides for two methods of nomination: Direct primaries and Consensus. The provisions are significant because they establish the statutory framework within which political parties must nominate their candidates. This is the very foundation for leadership recruitment. Thus, a political party cannot simply ignore the applicable law and expect its preferred candidate to enjoy automatic legal protection. The process of nomination must comply with the Constitution, the Electoral Act and applicable party rules, subject to their consistency with superior law. An organisation cannot claim to be democratic while denying its members the opportunity to participate in decisions affecting them. The same principle applies to political parties, professional associations, religious organisations and community institutions. A leader who imposes

decisions without respecting established procedures may create unnecessary disputes and institutional instability. A departure from this global best practice leads to imposition and the emergence of godfatherism in the political terrain, which we should do everything to avoid. Majority of the cases filed in court relate to party primary elections, especially in cases where the results of the said primary elections do not reflect the ultimate choice of the leadership of the party.

Political appointees and party primaries: Section 88

Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 provides that a political appointee at any level shall not be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention, congress or primaries of a political party for the purpose of nominating candidates. Section 88(2) gives an aspirant who complains of non-compliance with the Act or applicable party nomination guidelines the right to approach the Federal High Court for redress. Section 88(3) provides that where the court finds that a political party failed to comply with the Act in conducting its primaries, its candidate shall not be included in the election for the particular position. There is also an important limitation in section 88(4): the provision does not empower the courts to stop the holding of a primary or general election merely because litigation is pending.

Implications for 2027

This provision makes compliance with nomination procedures particularly important. A candidate who believes that the party has violated the law must pursue the appropriate legal remedy within the prescribed procedural framework. Political parties must also understand that their internal decisions are not entirely immune from judicial scrutiny. An organisation cannot use its internal rules to justify conduct that violates superior law. The same principle applies to companies, associations, religious bodies and other institutions. Internal autonomy is not a licence for illegality. Thus, no matter the ouster clauses that are inserted in the Electoral Act, the judiciary will always intervene to restore rule of law and strict adherence to internal democracy.

Electoral offences and political accountability

The Electoral Act 2026 devotes Part VII to electoral offences. Sections 118–133 address various offences relating to registration, nomination, voting, bribery, impersonation, disorderly conduct, undue influence, threats and other misconduct. Of particular importance are:

Section 123: Impersonation and voting when not qualified.

Section 125: Bribery and conspiracy.

Section 127: Wrongful voting and false statements.

Section 129: Disorderly conduct at elections.

Section 131: Undue influence.

Section 132: Threatening.

These provisions demonstrate that electoral misconduct is not simply an ethical problem; it can constitute a criminal offence. A person who sells a vote, threatens voters, impersonates another voter or participates in electoral bribery may expose himself or herself to criminal liability. Integrity must not be sacrificed for temporary personal benefit. Accepting money to compromise a collective decision may appear profitable in the short term, but it can create long-term harm. This principle applies to recruitment exercises, examinations, professional elections, procurement processes and public appointments. A society that rewards dishonesty eventually pays for it through institutional failure.

ELECTION PETITIONS UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT 2026

One of the most important areas of electoral law is the determination of election petitions. An election petition is a special legal proceeding through which an aggrieved candidate or political party challenges the validity of an election. It is not simply an opportunity to express dissatisfaction with an electoral outcome. It is a formal judicial process governed by constitutional provisions, the Electoral Act and applicable procedural rules.

Who can present an election petition?

Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2026 recognises the following persons: A candidate in an election, and A political party which participated in the election. The statutory framework therefore identifies the persons entitled to challenge an election. The right to present a petition must be distinguished from the ability to establish the allegations contained in that petition. A person may have the legal right to complain but still fail because the evidence does not establish the alleged irregularities.

Grounds for questioning an election: Section 138

Section 138(1) recognises two principal grounds: First: That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. Second: That the respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election. Section 138(2) further provides that an act or omission contrary to an INEC instruction or directive, but not contrary to the provisions of the Act itself, shall not by itself constitute a ground for questioning the election. Section 138(3) introduces monetary penalties where a court determines that a petition has been brought on grounds outside those specified in subsection (1). The prescribed minimum penalties are N5 million against the counsel and N10 million against the petitioner. National Assembly of Nigeria +1

A significant legal development

A notable change in the 2026 legislation is the omission of the former express ground that the person returned was not qualified to contest the election. Under the 2022 Act, lack of qualification was expressly recognised as a ground in section 134(1). The 2026 Act’s section 138 does not retain that separate ground. This makes the distinction between pre-election litigation and post-election petitions particularly important. A person challenging the qualification of a candidate should carefully consider the pre-election legal remedies, the relevant constitutional provisions and the applicable limitation periods rather than assume that the issue can automatically be raised after the election. There may be difficult questions concerning the relationship between this statutory change, constitutional qualification requirements and the time available for pre-election litigation. The courts may be required to address those questions in appropriate cases.

The burden of proof in election petitions

The burden of proof is one of the most important principles in Nigerian election jurisprudence. A petitioner must establish the allegations made in the petition by credible and admissible evidence. It is not sufficient to allege that an election was manipulated, that votes were inflated or that the electoral commission acted improperly. The allegations must be supported by evidence. The general evidential principles are found in the Evidence Act 2011, particularly sections 131–133. Where allegations of corrupt practices constitute criminal allegations, the applicable criminal standard of proof must also be considered under section 135 of the Evidence Act. This distinction is important: not every allegation of non-compliance is automatically a criminal allegation.

Substantial non-compliance

The law does not necessarily invalidate an election because every aspect of its administration was not perfect. The relevant question is whether the alleged non-compliance satisfies the applicable statutory threshold for invalidating the election. Section 139 of the Electoral Act 2026 addresses defects that do not automatically invalidate an election. Section 140 regulates the circumstances in which an election may be nullified by a tribunal or court. This reflects the established judicial approach that electoral irregularities must be legally and evidentially connected to the validity of the election. In everyday disputes, a person who alleges wrongdoing must be prepared to establish it. In a workplace disciplinary matter, a civil dispute or a contractual disagreement, allegations without supporting evidence may not establish liability. The law distinguishes suspicion from proof.

DECIDED COURT CASES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR 2027

The Electoral Act 2026 must be understood against the background of judicial decisions that have shaped Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence. The following cases provide important guidance.

Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 216, Supreme Court authority.

This case arose from the challenge to the 2007 presidential election. One of the principal issues was whether non-compliance with electoral legislation was sufficient to invalidate the election. The Supreme Court emphasised that proving non-compliance alone does not automatically entitle a petitioner to have an election nullified. The petitioner must also establish that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. The decision is important because it distinguishes between irregularities and irregularities that legally justify nullification.

Relevance to 2027

A petitioner who alleges that polling procedures were violated must demonstrate the nature of the violation and its legally relevant effect on the election. A general allegation that the election was not perfect will not necessarily satisfy the legal threshold. Not every mistake justifies the destruction of an entire institution or relationship. In a business transaction, a minor procedural error may not automatically invalidate the whole transaction. The seriousness of the breach and its consequences matter. This is why the issue of substantial compliance comes into play. Even in boardroom procedures, failure to comply with certain procedural requirements should not act to invalidate what has been properly done by the company and its shareholders.