A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging sections 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 lacked merit, ruling that the contested 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). The party sought declarations that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional and argued that questions concerning the qualification of candidates should still be entertained after elections.
However, the court upheld preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit. Justice Umar ruled that the case merely sought the court’s interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and did not qualify as a pre-election matter simply because INEC’s election timetable was attached to the originating summons.
The judge also struck out the suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly, holding that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before commencing proceedings.
On the substantive issues, Justice Umar held that the Constitution sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, while the Electoral Act provides the procedure and timelines for resolving disputes arising from party primaries.
He ruled that any aggrieved person seeking to challenge the qualification of a candidate who emerged from a political party’s primary election must do so during the pre-election stage.
According to the court, Section 138 of the Electoral Act is consistent with the Constitution and serves to complement its provisions rather than contradict them.
The judge also declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, noting that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on the provision.
He also said that lower courts are bound by judicial precedent and therefore could not depart from the appellate court’s earlier decision.
