A Federal High Court in Abuja today dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.
Justice Muhammed Umar held that the action, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, lacked merit, ruling that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act complement, rather than conflict with, the 1999 Constitution, reports Daily Independent.
The NDC had 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 reliefs, declarations that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional.
The plaintiff also urged the court to hold that questions bordering on the qualification of candidates could still be raised after elections.
However, Justice Umar upheld preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit, and held that the plaintiff was merely inviting the court to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions.
According to the judge, “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.”
He added 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.
On the objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Justice Umar held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before commencing proceedings.
He ruled that the implication of non-service of a pre-action notice on the 2nd defendant “makes this suit incompetent against the second defendant,” before striking out the action against the Clerk.
On the substantive issue, the judge rejected the NDC’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act was inconsistent with constitutional provisions governing qualification and disqualification for elective offices.
Justice Umar held that the Constitution prescribes the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, while the Electoral Act merely provides the procedure and timeline for ventilating disputes arising 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 held 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 declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, holding that the issue had already been determined by the Court of Appeal.
According to him, the appellate court had pronounced on the provision in an earlier decision, stressing that the implication was that “courts, generally, are bound by precedent of the appellate court “.
