Abuja Court Dismisses NDC’s Suit Challenging Key Provisions Of 2026 Electoral Act
Abuja Court Dismisses NDC’s Suit Challenging Key Provisions Of 2026 Electoral Act
The NDC had instituted the case 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 (INEC).
Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has thrown out a lawsuit filed by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) seeking to nullify portions of the 2026 Electoral Act, ruling that the contested provisions are consistent with the 1999 Constitution and that the case lacked legal merit.
Investigative reporting services
Justice Umar delivered the judgment on Tuesday in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, dismissing the action after upholding preliminary objections raised by the defendants.
The NDC had instituted the case 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 (INEC).
The opposition party asked the court to declare Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional, arguing that the provisions unlawfully restricted when issues relating to the qualification or disqualification of candidates for elective offices could be challenged.
The party also urged the court to hold that questions concerning the eligibility of candidates should remain open for litigation even after elections had been concluded.
However, Justice Umar ruled that the plaintiff was essentially asking the court to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions rather than raising a valid pre-election dispute.
According to the judge, the mere attachment of INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not convert the suit into a pre-election matter under Section 285 of the Constitution.
He noted that there was no evidence before the court showing that the election timetable itself was being challenged.
The court also upheld an objection filed by the Clerk of the National Assembly, holding that the NDC failed to comply with the legal requirement of serving a pre-action notice before commencing proceedings against the office.
Justice Umar consequently struck out the suit against the Clerk, describing the action as incompetent in relation to the second defendant.
On the substantive issues, the judge rejected the NDC’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act conflicted with constitutional provisions on the qualification and disqualification of candidates.
He held that while the Constitution sets out the conditions for qualification and disqualification for elective offices, the Electoral Act merely establishes the procedure and timeline for resolving disputes arising from party primaries.
The judge stressed that anyone seeking to challenge the eligibility of a candidate who emerged from a political party’s primary must do so during the pre-election stage.
He further ruled that Section 138 complements, rather than contradicts, the Constitution and therefore cannot be declared invalid.
Justice Umar also declined the request to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, noting that the Court of Appeal had already pronounced on the provision in an earlier judgment.
He said lower courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial precedent and could not depart from the appellate court’s decision.
