The Centre for Community Law and Professor of International Law Amos Osaigbovo Enabulele have filed proceedings before the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, praying the Court to declare that Nigeria’s constitutional provisions compelling candidates to be sponsored by political parties for elective office are in clear violation of citizens’ rights under international human rights instruments. The application was filed on 15th April 2026 with the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the sole respondent.
With the process for Nigeria’s 2027 general elections in progress, and the Independent Electoral Commission, INEC, out with a revised timetable fixing the presidential and National Assembly elections on 16th January 2027, the political atmosphere is charged with most of the opposition parties in leadership crises amid growing unease about whether the electoral process will be genuinely competitive. It is within this context that the applicants framed their suit before the Community Court, citing an “existential threat to the citizens’ political right.”
The provisions under challenge are Sections 65(2)(b), 106(d), 131(c), and 177(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, together with Section 105(e) of the Electoral Act 2026.
“Taken together, these provisions make party membership and party sponsorship mandatory conditions for contesting any elective office, from councillor to president. No candidate, however qualified, may stand independently of a registered political party,” the applicants averred.
They contend that “this arrangement places Nigeria in breach of its obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG) 2007.”
The Centre for Community Law, as the first applicant, is a civil society organisation registered in Nigeria, whose objectives include enlightening citizens on ECOWAS laws and monitoring compliance with Community instruments. The second applicant, Prof. Enabulele, is a professor of public international law and a registered voter, who said that “his right to contest for the office of the President of Nigeria is impeded without political party sponsorship.” Both applicants advance different but complementary interests – the first argues on behalf of the general voting population, while the second pleads the direct violation of his political rights.
The legal foundation of the claim rests on three overlapping arguments. First, the applicants contend that “Article 13(1) of the African Charter guarantees every citizen the right to participate freely in the governance of their country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives.” Therefore, “any system that channels all participation through political parties,” they argue, “forecloses the direct route entirely”.
Second, the applicants invoke Article 10 of the Charter, which “protects freedom of association and expressly provides that no one may be compelled to join an association.”
According to them, “where party membership is a legal prerequisite for seeking elected office, the state has effectively imposed a compulsion to associate, which the African Charter prohibits.” Third, the applicants point to Article 2, which “guarantees the enjoyment of Charter rights without discrimination,” adding that the present system “creates a structural preference for party members over citizens who choose not to affiliate, thereby constituting discrimination on grounds of political opinion.”
The applicants rely on the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which addressed a similar provision in the Tanzanian Constitution in the consolidated cases of Tanganyika Law Society and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania. In that case, the African Court found that requiring presidential and parliamentary candidates to belong to a political party constituted a violation of the right to participate freely in government under Article 13(1) of the African Charter, a violation of freedom of association under Article 10, and a violation of non-discrimination under Articles 2 and 3.
They urge the ECOWAS Court to follow the same reasoning, noting that the “two provisions are textually identical and the factual circumstances comparable.”
They also cited recent decisions by the ECOWAS Court itself. In Ligue Togolaise des Droits de l’Homme v. Togolese Republic, decided in 2026, the Court affirmed that the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance “constitutes a human rights instrument that may be invoked before it (Court), and confirmed the standing of NGOs to bring public interest actions of this kind.” Also, in Khalifa Ababacar Sall v. Republic of Senegal, the ECOWAS Court “declared that the right to vote and be elected for is fundamental and binding on all ECOWAS states party to the ICCPR and the ACHPR.”
The applicants said, “these precedents are carefully placed in the application to preempt jurisdictional objections and establish that the present case is well within the Court’s competence.”
On jurisdiction and admissibility, the applicants adopt the two-stage approach, which they said “the ECOWAS Court has consistently applied,” arguing that “jurisdiction is grounded in the Court’s Protocol, which confers on it, the authority to hear cases of human rights violation within Member States, and in the human rights instruments themselves, which are binding on Nigeria and applicable before the Court by virtue of Article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty and Article 20 of the Court’s Protocol.”
On admissibility, the applicants said the “Court’s jurisprudence permits NGOs possessing legal personality to institute public interest actions on behalf of identifiable groups of victims, provided the organisation is not seeking to benefit itself but the public at large.” The applicants also rely on the Incorporated Trustees of Prince & Princess Charles Offokaja Foundation v. Nigeria, decided in 2025, in which the “Court held that reliefs designed to benefit the general public rather than specific individuals qualify the action as an actio popularis.” Prof. Enabulele further said that “he holds an independent standing as a citizen who alleges direct violation of his personal rights.”
In their application, the applicants included newspaper reports documenting the “instability of opposition parties in Nigeria, including allegations of vote-buying at party primaries and reports of the Labour Party, the ADC, and the PDP facing potentially disabling internal disputes ahead of the 2027 elections.”
The applicants also included the INEC timetable and cited provisions of the new Electoral Act 2026, “to show that the party-sponsorship requirement is not merely a constitutional vestige but an actively enforced condition.”
“The overall picture is one in which the monopoly of political parties over candidacy is not an abstract constitutional provision but a present and worsening constraint on political participation,” the applicants affirmed.
The reliefs being sought by the applicant are both declaratory and mandatory. They are praying the ECOWAS Court “to declare that the impugned provisions violate Articles 2, 10, and 13 of the African Charter, Articles 3 and 25 of the ICCPR, and Articles 4(2) and 17 of ACDEG.”
They are also seeking “an order compelling Nigeria to amend or repeal the relevant sections of the Constitution and the Electoral Act; an order requiring legislative and administrative steps to regulate independent candidacy in all elections, and a restraining order preventing the enforcement of the provisions against eligible citizens in the meantime as well as a compliance reporting mechanism.”
The applicants are equally seeking an expedited hearing of the case. The Court has not fixed any date.
Political party sponsorship requirement has been a feature of Nigeria’s electoral law since 1999, but has rarely been tested in an international forum. By filing their suit at a time when the credibility of the party system is visibly strained, and by grounding their claim in a body of regional jurisprudence already decided, the applicants are making a strong case for change.
Mercy Olatayo is a Law graduate with the Centre for Community Law
