The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to the qualification and disqualification of candidates seeking elective offices.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the suit lacked merit, ruling that the disputed sections of the Electoral Act complement, rather than contradict, the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
The NDC had dragged the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and the Independent National Electoral Commission before the court seeking, among other reliefs, declarations that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional.
It argued that the sections were inconsistent with constitutional provisions governing the qualification and disqualification of candidates, praying for a declaration that questions relating to the qualification of candidates could still be entertained after elections had been concluded.
However, Justice Umar upheld the preliminary objections challenging the competence of the action, holding that the plaintiff was merely seeking an interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.
“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.
The court further rejected the argument that attaching INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons transformed the matter into a pre-election dispute.
“The fact that the defendant’s timetable is attached cannot make the case that within the contemplation of Section 285 there is no deposition that raises questions as to the timetable,” Justice Umar held.
On the objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly, the court ruled that the NDC failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before instituting the suit.
Justice Umar held that the failure to serve the notice rendered the suit incompetent against the second defendant.
He ruled that the non-service of a pre-action notice on the Clerk of the National Assembly “makes this suit incompetent against the second defendant,” and subsequently struck out the case against the Clerk.
On the substantive issues, the judge rejected the NDC’s contention that Section 138 of the Electoral Act conflicted with constitutional provisions on the qualification and disqualification of candidates.
According to him, while the Constitution outlines the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act merely establishes the procedure and timeline for resolving disputes arising from political 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 held.
Justice Umar further ruled that Section 138, when read together with other provisions of the Electoral Act, was fully consistent 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 declared.
The court also refused to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, holding that the issue had already been settled by the Court of Appeal.
According to Justice Umar, the appellate court had previously pronounced on the provision, adding that the doctrine of judicial precedent remained binding on lower courts.
“The implication was that courts, generally, are bound by precedent,” the judge stated.