LEGAL OPINION Digital Membership Register Requirement: An Unconstitutional Expansion of Disqualification Grounds

BY HON C.I D. MADUABUM, LL.M

We have examined the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 which purport to disqualify a candidate from contesting an election on the ground that his or her political party failed to submit or maintain a digital membership register in S77 of the Act.

We maintain that such a provision is unconstitutional and inconsistent with settled judicial authority.
The supremacy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not in doubt. Section 1(1) and (3) makes it clear that the Constitution prevails over all other laws, and any inconsistent provision is void to the extent of its inconsistency.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the qualifications and disqualifications for elective office, as expressly provided in the Constitution, are exhaustive and cannot be expanded by statute or administrative action.
In PDP v. INEC, the Supreme Court firmly held that INEC has no power to disqualify a candidate who satisfies constitutional requirements. The Court made it clear that the power to determine qualification is rooted in the Constitution itself, not in subsidiary legislation or regulatory discretion.
Similarly, in APC v. Marafa, the Supreme Court emphasized that political parties must comply with statutory requirements regarding primaries, but the consequences flow from the validity of nomination — not from inventing new constitutional disqualifications. The Court carefully distinguished between party non-compliance and constitutional qualification.
In INEC v. Musa, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that neither the legislature nor INEC can introduce restrictions that undermine constitutional rights to political participation beyond what the Constitution permits.
The consistent judicial thread is clear:
Where the Constitution has spoken, neither the National Assembly nor an electoral body may add to it by ordinary legislation.

If a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for office, he or she cannot be disqualified merely because a political party failed to maintain or upload a digital membership register. Such a provision amounts to introducing a new substantive ground of disqualification not contemplated by the Constitution.
Regulation of party administration is permissible. But once the consequence of party non-compliance becomes the outright exclusion of a constitutionally qualified candidate from the ballot, the law crosses the line from regulation into unconstitutional amendment.
Democracy cannot be defended by weakening constitutional guarantees. The right to contest elections, subject only to constitutional limitations, is a core democratic right.
We therefore submit that any provision of the Electoral Act 2026 that disqualifies a candidate solely on the basis of a party’s failure to uphold or submit a digital membership register is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down upon judicial review.

The Constitution remains supreme. It cannot be amended by stealth through ordinary legislation.