🎧
Listen to this article
The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) which challenged key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.
In the judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the action—marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025—lacked merit.
The court ruled that the disputed sections of the Electoral Act complement rather than conflict with 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 (INEC) to court.
The plaintiff sought declarations nullifying Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 and argued that questions regarding a candidate’s qualification could still be raised after elections.
Justice Umar upheld preliminary objections challenging the overall competence of the suit. He noted that the plaintiff was improperly inviting the court to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions outside proper pre-election frameworks.
Addressing the objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly, the judge ruled that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice, rendering the suit incompetent against the second defendant and striking out that portion of the action.
On the substantive issue regarding Section 138, Justice Umar maintained that while the Constitution sets general qualifications and disqualifications, the Electoral Act lawfully outlines the procedure and timeline for resolving primary election disputes:
“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.”
Furthermore, the court declined to invalidate Section 77(5), noting that the appellate court had already settled the matter in a previous decision, making lower and federal courts strictly bound by legal precedent.
No Comments