By Gabriel Ewepu
ABUJA — Executive Director of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, on Wednesday dismissed claims that Sections 77(7) and 85 of the Electoral Act 2026 are in conflict, saying the provisions address different aspects of the electoral process.
Itodo said the issue required careful legal interpretation rather than partisan consideration, noting that the two sections regulate different actors and operate at different levels.
According to him, Section 85 places limits on what political parties can demand from aspirants, preventing parties from imposing eligibility, qualification or disqualification requirements beyond those prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Section 77(7), on the other hand, deals with a political party’s statutory obligations, particularly the submission of its membership register within the period stipulated by law.
Itodo argued that the consequence for failing to meet that obligation is imposed by the Electoral Act itself and does not amount to an additional qualification or disqualification criterion created by a political party.
“The two provisions do not conflict. They speak to different actors and operate at different levels.”
He explained that a political party could comply fully with Section 85 while still violating Section 77(7), just as compliance with Section 77(7) would not determine whether the party had imposed unlawful eligibility requirements on candidates.
“One regulates what parties may demand of aspirants. The other regulates what the law demands of parties.”
The Yiaga Africa boss acknowledged that there could be a conceptual tension between the provisions but maintained that such tension should not be interpreted as a legal contradiction.
He also distinguished between an individual’s eligibility to contest an election and a political party’s capacity to lawfully sponsor a candidate.
According to Itodo, an aspirant may meet all constitutional requirements for contesting an election while the political party seeking to sponsor the aspirant may be unable to validly do so if it has failed to comply with statutory requirements governing the nomination process.
“The aspirant’s qualification remains intact. What fails is the party’s capacity to sponsor.”
Itodo cautioned against interpreting electoral legislation in ways that accommodate partisan interests, arguing that the meaning and effect of the provisions should be determined through a principled reading of the law.
He said the distinction between candidate qualification and party compliance with statutory nomination requirements was central to understanding the relationship between Sections 77(7) and 85 of the Electoral Act 2026.
The post Electoral Act: No conflict between Sections 77(7), 85 — Itodo appeared first on Vanguard News.