The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging key provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, ruling that the disputed sections are consistent with the 1999 Constitution and complement, rather than contradict, its provisions.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Mohammed Umar held that the suit lacked merit and upheld preliminary objections challenging its competence.
The NDC had approached the court seeking to nullify Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026, arguing that the provisions were inconsistent with constitutional requirements governing qualification for elective offices and the right to political association.
The party, which was registered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on February 5, instituted the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2026 against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and INEC.
However, Justice Umar ruled that the Electoral Act provisions merely provide procedures for resolving electoral disputes and do not conflict with the Constitution.
“The plaintiff is invoking the interpretative jurisdiction of this honourable court in respect of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on the one hand and the 1999 Constitution on the other hand,” the judge held.
He also dismissed the NDC’s attempt to classify the matter as a pre-election case, noting that the attachment of INEC’s election timetable to the suit did not alter its legal character.
“The fact that the defendant’s timetable is attached cannot make the case within the contemplation of Section 285,” Justice Umar said.
The court further struck out the case against the Clerk of the National Assembly after finding that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before commencing legal proceedings.
“The implication of non-service of a pre-action notice on the 2nd defendant makes this suit incompetent against the 2nd defendant,” the judge ruled.
On the substantive issues, Justice Umar rejected the party’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act unlawfully removed qualification as a post-election ground for challenging elected officials.
According to him, while the Constitution prescribes the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act simply establishes the procedure and timelines for ventilating such disputes.
“Any aggrieved party who intends to challenge any candidate that emerged at the primary election of a political party on grounds of disqualification must do so at the pre-election level,” he held.
The judge added that the disputed provision reinforces, rather than undermines, the Constitution.
“The provision of Section 138 of the Electoral Act 2026 complements the provision of the Constitution but is not in conflict with it.
“The contention of the plaintiff that Section 138 is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no merit,” he ruled.
Justice Umar also declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, holding that the issue had already been settled by the Court of Appeal and remained binding on lower courts.
According to him, judicial precedent prevented the Federal High Court from reaching a contrary conclusion.
“The implication is that courts, generally, are bound by precedent,” he stated.
The NDC had asked the court to strike down Section 138 of the Electoral Act for allegedly conflicting with constitutional provisions on qualification and disqualification for elective offices and to compel the National Assembly to amend the law to restore qualification as a post-election ground for challenging the return of elected candidates.
The party also sought the nullification of Section 77(5), arguing that it infringed on constitutional rights to freedom of association and political participation.
In response, INEC urged the court to dismiss the suit, insisting that the Electoral Act was validly enacted by the National Assembly and duly assented to by President Bola Tinubu.
The electoral commission maintained that the law neither violated constitutional rights nor restricted political participation, adding that its timetable for party primaries fully complied with both the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly and Senate President Godswill Akpabio also opposed the suit, arguing that the Electoral Act was constitutionally enacted and that the NDC was effectively asking the court to perform the legislative functions of the National Assembly.
With the judgment, the Federal High Court affirmed the validity of the challenged provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, dealing a setback to the NDC’s attempt to alter Nigeria’s electoral legal framework ahead of the 2027 general election.
