A seven-member panel reserved judgment on Wednesday in a case that will settle how much statutory control INEC and the Electoral Act have over party membership registers and candidate selection heading into 2027.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on Wednesday in an appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission against a Court of Appeal ruling that voided parts of the Electoral Act 2026. The panel, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, gave no date for the ruling. "This matter is now reserved for judgment, at a date to be communicated to the parties," Jauro said.

The case traces back to a suit filed by the Zenith Labour Party, which argued that Sections 77(5) to (7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act interfere with a party's constitutional right to run its own internal affairs. Those sections require parties to submit a membership register to INEC and to use only that register for primaries and conventions. Section 84(2) requires parties to nominate candidates through direct primaries or consensus. A party that fails to submit a compliant register on time can be barred from fielding candidates altogether.

The Federal High Court dismissed ZLP's suit on May 5. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision on July 16, voiding the disputed provisions as unconstitutional interference in party affairs.

INEC is represented before the Supreme Court by Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN. ZLP's case rests on Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution, which the party argues give political parties the constitutional right to run their own internal affairs without statutory interference from INEC. INEC's position is the opposite. A membership register submitted to and verifiable by INEC, and a nomination process limited to direct primaries or consensus, exist specifically to stop party leadership from manufacturing lists or imposing candidates without genuine input from members.

Whichever way the ruling lands changes the terms under which every party selects its 2027 candidates. Section 84(2) already allows parties to nominate through direct primaries or consensus, and the consensus route carries its own statutory requirements, including written consent from every cleared aspirant who steps aside. What the Court of Appeal voided was INEC's power to require a submitted, verifiable membership register as the basis for who gets to take part in either process. If that ruling stands, parties gain more room to run primaries and consensus arrangements with less INEC oversight of who's actually on the register. If the Supreme Court sides with INEC, parties stay bound to submitted registers, with real financial consequences for those that don't comply.

This ruling will not appear on a ballot. Most Nigerians will never read Sections 77 or 84. But by the time party primaries begin ahead of 2027, whichever rule the Supreme Court leaves standing will already have decided how much real choice ordinary party members had in picking who's even on that ballot.