Nigeria's Electoral Act 2026 Draws Sharp Criticism as Parties Warn of Threat to Democratic Process

Nigeria’s newly passed Electoral Act 2026 has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum, with opposition parties and civil society groups warning that several of its provisions could undermine the integrity of the country’s democratic process ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The legislation, which amends the 2022 Electoral Act, introduces sweeping changes to candidate nomination procedures, campaign finance limits, and the jurisdiction of courts over party disputes. Critics argue that the changes tilt the playing field in favour of incumbents and wealthy political actors, while defenders say the reforms address long-standing weaknesses in Nigeria’s electoral framework.

The Inter-Party Advisory Council, the umbrella body representing all registered political parties in Nigeria, has formally rejected the Act, warning that it could undermine the credibility of the 2027 elections. The council’s position reflects a rare moment of cross-party consensus in Nigeria’s fractious political landscape, with both ruling and opposition parties expressing reservations about specific provisions.

Key Provisions Under Fire

Among the most contentious changes is the elimination of indirect primaries. Under the 2022 Act, political parties could select candidates through direct primaries, indirect primaries, or consensus. The 2026 Act restricts the options to direct primaries and consensus only, removing the delegate-based indirect system entirely.

While the reform is ostensibly aimed at curbing vote-buying and elite manipulation at delegate conventions, critics argue that the consensus mechanism — which allows party leaders to agree on a candidate without a vote — effectively hands selection power to a small group of power brokers. “What they have done is eliminate one avenue for manipulation while leaving the widest door open,” said one opposition party official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another provision that has drawn constitutional scrutiny is Section 83(5), which strips Nigerian courts of jurisdiction over disputes arising from a political party’s internal affairs. The section states that “no court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.” Legal scholars have pointed out that Section 4(8) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution expressly prohibits any law that ousts the jurisdiction of the courts, raising the prospect of a constitutional challenge.

The Act attempts to soften the ouster clause by allowing courts to hear such cases at the final judgment stage, while imposing costs of at least 10 million Naira each on the lawyer and the plaintiff if the court finds the action unwarranted. Critics say this financial penalty is designed to deter aggrieved party members from seeking judicial redress.

Campaign Finance: Doubling the Ceiling

The 2026 Act also significantly raises campaign spending limits. Presidential candidates may now spend up to 10 billion Naira, double the 5 billion Naira ceiling set in the 2022 Act. Individual donation limits have been increased tenfold, from 50 million to 500 million Naira.

Proponents argue the higher limits reflect economic realities and the escalating cost of reaching Nigeria’s electorate of more than 90 million registered voters. Opponents counter that the changes effectively legalise the vast sums already being spent outside official channels, further entrenching the role of money in Nigerian politics.

Digital Registers and Voter Accreditation

On the procedural front, the Act mandates that all political parties maintain digital membership registers submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission at least 21 days before any primaries or conventions. Parties that fail to comply risk being barred from fielding candidates in the relevant elections.

The Act also reinforces the mandatory use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, the biometric technology that was piloted in the 2023 elections. INEC will be required to deploy BVAS at every polling unit, a measure that supporters say will reduce impersonation and multiple voting but that critics warn could create logistical bottlenecks in areas with poor infrastructure.

What Comes Next

With the 2027 elections now less than a year away, the window for legal challenges to the Act is narrowing. Several opposition figures have indicated they will file constitutional suits against the ouster clause and the consensus provision, but Nigeria’s courts have historically been reluctant to intervene in electoral legislation close to an election cycle.

The broader concern, shared by many observers both within and outside Nigeria, is that the Act may deepen public cynicism about the electoral process at a time when voter confidence is already fragile. The 2023 elections were marred by allegations of irregularities and technical failures, and the new legislation does little to address the trust deficit that resulted.

As Nigeria approaches another pivotal election, the question is not merely whether the Electoral Act 2026 is legally sound, but whether it will deliver elections that the Nigerian public is willing to accept as legitimate.

Image Source: GHANAMMA