The Executive Director of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, has dismissed claims of a conflict between Sections 77(7) and 85 of the 2026 Electoral Act, saying the provisions regulate different aspects of the electoral process.

Itodo, in a statement made available to The Guardian, said the argument that Section 77(7) contradicted Section 85 amounted to stretching legislative intent to justify partisan positions.

Section 85 prohibits political parties from imposing eligibility, qualification or disqualification criteria beyond those prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended, while Section 77(7) provides consequences for a political party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period.

According to Itodo, the distinction is critical because Section 85 regulates what political parties can demand of aspirants, while Section 77(7) regulates what the law requires political parties to do.

“The two provisions do not conflict. They speak to different actors and operate at different levels,” he said.

Itodo explained that a political party could comply fully with Section 85 and still fall foul of Section 77(7), stressing that the two provisions imposed separate obligations.

“There is, undoubtedly, a conceptual tension between the two provisions, but conceptual tension is not the same as legal conflict,” he said.

The Yiaga Africa executive director said the critical distinction was between a candidate’s eligibility and a political party’s compliance with the statutory nomination process.

He noted that an aspirant could be fully qualified to contest an election, yet the political party seeking to sponsor the aspirant could be legally incapable of doing so because it had failed to comply with the statutory nomination process.

“The aspirant’s qualification remains intact. What fails is the party’s capacity to sponsor,” Itodo said.

He cautioned against interpreting electoral provisions in a manner that accommodates partisan interests, arguing that the provisions should be assessed according to their distinct legal purposes and the obligations they impose.

“Legal interpretation should not be stretched to accommodate partisan convenience,” he added.