The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.
Delivering judgment, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the suit, 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.
The NDC had instituted the suit 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 2026 are unconstitutional.
The party also asked the court to declare that issues relating to the qualification of candidates could still be challenged after elections.
Justice Umar, however, upheld the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, describing the suit as an invitation for the court to interpret 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 held.
He also ruled that attaching INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not make the case 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 said.
On the objection filed by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Justice Umar held that the NDC failed to comply with the legal requirement of serving a pre-action notice before commencing the suit.
He ruled that the failure to serve the notice rendered the action incompetent against the second defendant and accordingly struck out the suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly.
On the substantive issues, the court rejected the NDC’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions governing the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective office.
Justice Umar held that while the Constitution prescribes the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act provides the procedure and timeline for challenging 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 stage,” the judge said.
He further ruled that Section 138, when read alongside other provisions of the Electoral Act, is 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 held.
Justice Umar also declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, noting that the Court of Appeal had already settled the issue in an earlier judgment.
According to the judge, the appellate court’s decision remains binding under the doctrine of judicial precedent, and lower courts are obliged to follow it.
