A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi SAN, has said political parties are required to submit their membership registers to the Independent National Electoral Commission at least 21 days before holding primaries, congresses or conventions.
Maduabuchi described the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Electoral Act 2026 as “perfect”, arguing that the decision reaffirmed INEC’s constitutional responsibility to organise and supervise elections.
He spoke during an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday while examining the September 24 judgment of the apex court, which restored provisions of the Electoral Act dealing with party membership registers and the nomination of candidates.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court had unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision invalidating the provisions and reinstated the earlier judgment of the Federal High Court.
Under the provisions restored by the Supreme Court, only party members whose names are contained in a membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention can participate in the exercise. Political parties are also required to use the register submitted to the commission, with sanctions applying where the register is not submitted within the stipulated period.
Maduabuchi dismissed concerns that the requirement amounted to interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
“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.
He stressed that parties retained the authority to determine their membership, while INEC required the registers to establish which members were eligible to participate in party primaries.
“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 said.
According to him, parties could choose whatever method they preferred for selecting candidates, including direct primaries or consensus, provided the process complied with the law.
“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.
Maduabuchi also warned that individuals or parties that took actions based on the now-overturned Court of Appeal judgment could be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“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.
He rejected the argument that the ruling diminished the autonomy of political parties, insisting that the Supreme Court did not prescribe how individuals should become members of a party.
READ ALSO:Shehu Sani Demands Transparency Over Nigeria-US Mineral Investment Framework
“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.
The SAN further argued that the provisions on direct primaries and consensus could help curb the role of money in determining party candidates.
“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 parties were only required to provide INEC with information about their membership ahead of a primary and were not surrendering control of their internal affairs to the commission.
“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. And you must let me know 21 days. And it didn’t tell us what and how to arrive at that. So I don’t see how it’s an interference,” he said.
Addressing questions over whether the judgment could affect candidates who had already conducted their primaries, Maduabuchi said the law applicable at the time the relevant action took place would have to be examined.
“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 and Peter Obi, would be affected, noting that he had not seen the relevant party membership registers.
“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 said the same uncertainty applied to other politicians whose eligibility could be questioned under the ruling.
“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.
Maduabuchi also dismissed claims that the 21-day requirement had been introduced suddenly, saying political parties had sufficient notice of the law.
“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 added that the requirement for parties to notify INEC in advance 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,” Maduabuchi said.