Court Dismisses NDC Suit, Upholds Validity of Electoral Act 2026 Provisions on Candidate Qualification
The Federal High Court, Abuja, has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.
Delivering judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the disputed provisions of the Act — particularly Sections 138 and 77(5) — are not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution (as amended) but rather complement it.
The NDC had sued the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seeking declarations that the provisions were unconstitutional and that questions of candidate qualification could still be raised post‑election.
Justice Umar upheld preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit, noting that the plaintiff was merely inviting the court to exercise its interpretative jurisdiction over constitutional and statutory provisions. He further ruled that the attachment of INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not transform the matter into a pre‑election dispute within the contemplation of Section 285 of the Constitution.
On the objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly, the court struck out the action against him for failure to serve the mandatory pre‑action notice.
On the substantive issue, Justice Umar rejected the NDC’s contention that Section 138 of the Electoral Act conflicted with constitutional provisions. He clarified that while the Constitution prescribes qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act merely sets out the procedure and timeline for ventilating disputes arising from party primaries.
The court held that challenges to a candidate’s qualification must be brought at the pre-election stage, not after elections. Justice Umar emphasized that Section 138 “complements the Constitution, but is not in conflict with it.”
The judge also declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, noting that the Court of Appeal had already pronounced on the provision, and lower courts are bound by precedent.
In conclusion, the suit was dismissed in its entirety for lacking merit.
