Court Rejects NDC Challenge to Key Electoral Act Provisions

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.

In his judgment, Justice Muhammed Umar ruled that the suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, was without merit, saying the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act were complementary and not in contradiction with the 1999 Constitution.

It was gathered that the NDC had instituted the action against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, and the Independent National Electoral Commission.

The party had approached the court to declare, among others, that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional.

The plaintiff also sought a declaration from the court that questions regarding the qualification or disqualification of candidates could still be raised after an election.

However, Justice Umar overruled preliminary objections raised against the competence of the suit.

The judge ruled that, “the NDC is basically asking for an interpretation of the provisions of the Electoral Act vis-à-vis those of the 1999 Constitution.

Justice Umar said, “The plaintiff is invoking the interpretative jurisdiction of this honourable court in respect of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on one hand and the 1999 Constitution on the contrary.

The judge also dismissed the argument that the case was a pre-election matter on the mere basis that the INEC election timetable was attached to the originating summons.

The court held that “the fact that the timetable of the defendant is attached cannot make the case within the contemplation of Section 285… there is no deposition… that raises questions as to the timetable.”

Justice Umar, in ruling on the preliminary objection filed by the Clerk of the National Assembly, held that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before filing the case.

The judge ruled the suit against the Clerk was incompetent for want of the proper notice.

He then dismissed the case against the second defendant.

The judge stated that the failure to serve the pre-action notice “makes this suit incompetent against the second defendant.”

On the substantive issues raised in the case, Justice Umar dismissed the argument by the NDC that section 138 of the electoral act was inconsistent with constitutional provisions on the qualification and disqualification of candidates contesting for elective offices.

The judge held that the Constitution stipulates the qualification and disqualification for elective offices, but the Electoral Act stipulates the procedure and timeline to challenge arising issues from political party primaries.

Read Also: JAMB Registrar Launches Five-Pillar Agenda to Shape Nigeria’s Digital Future

Candidates could not wait until after an election to challenge the qualification of a person who emerged from a party primary, he said.

“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,” Justice Umar said.

The judge further held that Section 138 of the Electoral Act, when construed together with other relevant provisions of the law, did not violate the Constitution.

“The provision of section 138 of the Electoral Act 2026 is complementary to the provision of the Constitution, but not in conflict with it. He ruled: “The contention of the plaintiff that Section 138 is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no merit.”

Justice Umar also refused to declare Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act invalid, stating that the issue had been considered and decided upon previously by the Court of Appeal.

The judge said the earlier decision of the appellate court still stood binding on the Federal High Court.

He pointed out the value of judicial precedent, saying, “Generally, courts are bound by precedent.”

The ruling essentially upheld the challenged provisions of the Electoral Act and reaffirmed the position that disputes over the qualification or disqualification of candidates arising out of party primaries should be pursued within the prescribed pre-election period.