The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) seeking to nullify key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, ruling that the party failed to establish that the disputed sections were unconstitutional.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Muhammed Umar held that Section 138 of the Electoral Act 2026, which removed the qualification of candidates as a ground for post-election petitions, does not conflict with the 1999 Constitution. According to the judge, the Constitution outlines who is qualified or disqualified to contest elections, while the Electoral Act simply provides the legal procedure and timeline for challenging a candidate’s qualification.
“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,” Justice Umar ruled.
The NDC had argued that questions surrounding the qualification of candidates should still be allowed after elections and urged the court to invalidate Section 138 of the Electoral Act. However, the court rejected the request, maintaining that such disputes should be addressed during the pre-election stage as provided by law.
The party also challenged Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026, which states that only party members whose names appear in the membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days before party primaries, congresses or conventions are eligible to vote during those exercises.
Justice Umar, however, ruled that the issue had already been settled by the Court of Appeal, making the appellate court’s decision binding on the Federal High Court.
The court also upheld a preliminary objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly, who argued that the NDC failed to serve the required pre-action notice before filing the lawsuit.
According to the judge, the failure to comply with that legal requirement rendered the suit incompetent.
“The fact that the defendant’s timetable is attached cannot make the case fall within the contemplation of Section 285,” the court added while rejecting the argument that the matter should be treated as a pre-election case.
Justice Umar explained that merely attaching INEC’s election timetable to the court documents did not automatically transform the case into a pre-election matter requiring special consideration.
The defendants in the suit included the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and INEC.
The judgment comes weeks after the Court of Appeal in Abuja struck down Sections 77(5), (6), (7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, ruling that they were inconsistent with Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution, which grant political parties the authority to determine who they nominate for elections.
That appellate court decision followed an appeal filed by the Zenith Party (ZP) after an earlier judgment by the same Federal High Court dismissed its challenge against the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act.
The latest ruling means Section 138 of the Electoral Act 2026 remains valid, while issues relating to Section 77(5) will continue to be governed by the existing Court of Appeal judgment unless overturned by a higher court.
