2027 Polls: Electoral Act 2026, judiciary and the test of Nigeria’s democracy, by Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

In this piece, Ebun Adegboruwa, SAN examines how the Electoral Act 2026, constitutional provisions and judicial precedents will shape Nigeria’s 2027 general elections, highlighting electronic transmission, party primaries, electoral offences, election petitions and the need for institutional independence, credible processes and democratic accountability

INTRODUCTION

The 2027 general elections represent another significant moment in Nigeria’s constitutional and democratic development. Beyond the contest for political offices, the elections will test the strength of Nigeria’s electoral institutions, the commitment of political parties to internal democracy, the independence of the judiciary, the credibility of the electoral process and, ultimately, the willingness of citizens to defend democratic values.

The enactment of the Electoral Act 2026, which repealed and replaced the Electoral Act 2022, has introduced a new statutory framework for the conduct of elections in Nigeria. The legislation addresses political party membership registers, nomination of candidates, electronic transmission of results, collation procedures, election offences and the determination of election petitions. However, the existence of an electoral law does not automatically guarantee credible elections.

The effectiveness of the law depends on its implementation, institutional independence, compliance by political actors, judicial interpretation and the vigilance of the electorate. In this piece, we will examine the Electoral Act 2026 against the background of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), relevant decisions of the Supreme Court and other courts, and the practical lessons that Nigerians can derive from electoral jurisprudence. It argues that Nigeria’s electoral fortunes in 2027 will be shaped not merely by who wins political office, but also by whether the electoral process respects the rule of law, protects the people’s mandate and strengthens democratic accountability.

2027 AND THE DESTINY OF NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY

Democracy is more than the periodic organisation of elections. It is a system of government founded on the sovereignty of the people, constitutional limitations on governmental power, political participation, accountability and the rule of law. Section 14(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) declares that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government derives all its powers and authority.

This constitutional provision establishes a fundamental democratic principle: political authority is not the personal property of the President, Governor, legislator or political party. It is a public trust derived from the people.

The 2027 general elections must therefore be understood within this constitutional philosophy. The Electoral Act 2026 was signed into law on 18 February 2026 and commenced on the same date. It repealed the Electoral Act 2022 and established the statutory framework applicable to the forthcoming elections. The Act was published in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette, Volume 113, No. 40, on 2 March 2026.

The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. It determines how political parties nominate candidates, how voters are accredited, how votes are counted, how results are transmitted, how electoral offences are prosecuted and how disputed elections are judicially determined. The central question is therefore:

Will the 2027 elections become an opportunity for strengthening constitutional democracy, or will the country repeat the legal, institutional and administrative difficulties that have characterised previous electoral cycles? The answer will depend on the faithful application of the law.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION OF THE 2027 ELECTIONS

The Electoral Act 2026 cannot be interpreted in isolation. It derives its authority from the Nigerian Constitution and must operate consistently with constitutional provisions. Some of the most important constitutional provisions include:

2.1 Section 14: Sovereignty of the people

Section 14(2)(a) provides that sovereignty belongs to the people. This means that elected officials are representatives of the electorate and not owners of governmental authority. A political office is therefore a public trust, not a personal inheritance.

2.2 Section 40: Freedom of association

Section 40 guarantees the right to assemble freely and associate with other persons, including the right to form or belong to political parties. This provision protects political participation and the right of citizens to organise themselves for political purposes.

2.3 Section 221: Political parties and election sponsorship

Section 221 provides that only a political party may canvass for votes for a candidate at an election or contribute to the funds of a political party or candidate, subject to the constitutional framework. This provision makes political parties central institutions in Nigeria’s electoral democracy.

2.4 Section 225: Political party finances

Section 225 provides constitutional controls over political party finances and empowers INEC to monitor and examine party financial activities in accordance with the Constitution.

2.5 Section 285: Election petitions and constitutional time limits

Section 285 establishes the framework for election tribunals and regulates the time within which election petitions and appeals must be determined.

Among other things:

Election petitions must be filed within 21 days after the declaration of results.
Appeals from election tribunal decisions must be determined within 60 days from delivery of judgment.
These time limits are constitutionally significant. They prevent election disputes from remaining unresolved indefinitely. In ordinary life, authority should always be exercised within the limits of the law. A person who occupies a position of leadership does not thereby become superior to the rules governing that position. The same principle applies to a community chairman, company director, church administrator, association president or public officeholder. Leadership confers responsibility, not unlimited power.

THE ELECTORAL ACT 2026: A NEW LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR 2027

The Electoral Act 2026 contains 156 sections and several schedules. It regulates the activities of INEC, political parties, voters, candidates, election officials and election tribunals. Some of its most significant provisions deserve detailed examination.

3.1 Electronic transmission of election results: Section 60

One of the most consequential aspects of the Electoral Act 2026 concerns electronic transmission of election results. Section 60(3) provides for the electronic transmission of polling-unit results to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the presiding officer and/or countersigned by candidates or polling agents where available. However, the subsection contains an important proviso. Where electronic transmission fails as a result of communication failure and transmission becomes impossible, the Form EC8A signed and stamped by the presiding officer and countersigned by candidates or polling agents where available remains the primary source for collation and declaration of results. This provision establishes a statutory framework for electronic transmission while retaining a manual documentary fallback in specified circumstances.

Legal implications

Three important consequences arise. First, electronic transmission is no longer merely a matter of administrative preference. It has express statutory recognition. Second, the law recognises that technological infrastructure may sometimes fail. The proviso provides a mechanism for dealing with such failure. Third, the circumstances in which communication failure is claimed may become important issues in future election litigation. The existence of the exception makes proper documentation, transparency and verification essential. The legal question is not simply whether a result appears on IReV. It is whether the result was lawfully recorded, transmitted or, where the statutory exception applies, properly supported by the prescribed polling-unit documentation. This provision teaches an important lesson about accountability. In business, government and personal administration, digital records improve transparency, but reliable original documentation remains important. A company that maintains electronic financial records should also preserve authentic supporting documents. A person who makes a payment electronically should retain the receipt. A public institution should maintain verifiable records of its transactions. The lesson is that transparency requires both accessibility and verifiability.

Accreditation and voting procedures

Sections 47 and 50 of the Act are relevant to voter accreditation and the conduct of voting. The statutory framework requires electoral procedures to be followed in the accreditation of voters and the conduct of the poll. Section 50 provides for voting by open secret ballot. The underlying democratic principle is that the process of voting must be transparent in administration while the voter’s actual choice remains confidential. This distinction is essential. The public must be able to scrutinise the conduct of an election without being entitled to dictate or expose an individual’s voting preference. Transparency does not mean the destruction of privacy. In family, professional and public administration, people should be accountable for their responsibilities while retaining legitimate personal rights.

Political party membership registers: Section 77

Section 77 introduces an important framework for political party membership records. Under section 77(2), political parties are required to maintain digital membership registers containing specified personal information, including:

Names of members; Sex and date of birth; Address and geographical particulars; State, Local Government and ward; Polling unit; National Identification Number; and Photograph. Section 77(4) requires parties to make their membership registers available to INEC not later than 21 days before the relevant primaries, congresses or conventions. Section 77(5) provides that only members whose names appear in the register are eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.

Why is this important?

Political parties are the foundations upon which candidates emerge for public elections. Where membership records are inaccurate, manipulated or unavailable, disputes may arise over who is entitled to participate in party primaries. The statutory requirement is intended to provide a verifiable membership structure. Nevertheless, the collection and use of personal information must also be handled responsibly and consistently with applicable privacy protections. An organisation that maintains membership records should ensure that those records are accurate and accessible to authorised persons. In a cooperative society, church association, professional body or trade organisation, membership records determine who is entitled to participate in elections and decision-making. A properly maintained register reduces disputes. The lesson is simple: good governance begins with accurate records.

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.