The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed a challenge filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging parts of the Electoral Act 2026 regarding the qualification and disqualification of candidates for political office.
Justice Muhammed Umar ruled that the action, FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, lacked merit, stating that the contested elements of the Electoral Act complement, not contradict, the 1999 Constitution.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) sued the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, seeking, among other things, findings that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional.
The complainant also wanted the court to rule that objections about candidate qualifications could still be raised after the election.
However, Justice Umar upheld preliminary objections to the suit’s competence, concluding that the plaintiff was simply asking the court to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions.
The judge said, “The plaintiff is invoking the interpretative jurisdiction of this honorable court in respect of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on the one hand and the 1999 Constitution on the other hand.”
He stated that the mere attachment of INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not transform the case into a pre-election matter.
“The fact that the defendant’s timetable is attached cannot make the case within the contemplation of Section 285… there is no deposition… that raises questions as to the timetable,” the court held.
Speaking on the objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Justice Umar held that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before commencing proceedings.
He ruled that the implication of not serving a pre-action notice on the second defendant “makes this suit incompetent against the second defendant” and dismissed the lawsuit against the Clerk.
On the substantive matter, the judge dismissed the NDC’s allegation that Section 138 of the Electoral Act violated constitutional provisions controlling elected office qualification and disqualification.
Justice Umar ruled that the Constitution establishes the qualifications and disqualifications for political seats, whereas the Electoral Act just specifies the mechanism and schedule for resolving disputes resulting from party primaries.
“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,” the judge said.
He further ruled that, when read together with other provisions of the Electoral Act, Section 138 was not inconsistent with 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 rejected nullifying Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, stating that the Court of Appeal had previously decided the issue.
According to him, the appeal court had ruled on the provision in a previous ruling, emphasizing that “courts, generally, are bound by precedent.”
