A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, ruling that the law does not conflict with the 1999 Constitution.
Delivering judgment, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, lacked merit and affirmed that the disputed provisions “complement, rather than conflict with” constitutional requirements on qualification and disqualification of candidates.
The NDC had instituted the case against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seeking declarations that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act were unconstitutional.
The party also urged the court to rule that issues concerning the qualification of candidates could still be raised after elections.
However, Justice Umar upheld preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit, stating that the plaintiff was merely asking the court to interpret existing laws.
“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 said.
He further ruled that attaching INEC’s election timetable to the suit did not make it 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,” he held.
On procedural grounds, the court found that the NDC failed to serve a mandatory pre-action notice on the Clerk of the National Assembly, rendering that aspect of the suit incompetent and leading to it being struck out against the second defendant.
On the substantive issues, Justice Umar rejected the NDC’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act conflicts with constitutional provisions.
“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… is of no merit,” he ruled.
He clarified that while the Constitution outlines qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act provides procedures and timelines for challenging outcomes of party primaries.
“Any aggrieved party… must do so at the pre-election level,” the judge added.
Justice Umar also declined to invalidate Section 77(5), noting that the Court of Appeal had already settled the matter, and lower courts are bound by such precedents.
The ruling is expected to shape legal interpretations ahead of the 2027 general elections, particularly on the timing and scope of disputes over candidate eligibility.
