The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices, holding that the disputed sections are consistent with the 1999 Constitution.
Justice Muhammed Umar, who delivered judgment on Tuesday, ruled that the suit lacked merit, holding that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 complement, rather than conflict with, constitutional provisions governing elections and candidate eligibility.
The NDC had instituted the suit against the Attorney General of the Federation, Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr Kamoru Ogunlana, Senate President, Senator 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 urged the court to rule that issues relating to the qualification of candidates could still be challenged after elections.
However, Justice Umar upheld the preliminary objections filed by the defendants, holding that the action merely sought the court’s interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.
According to the judge:
“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 court also rejected the argument that the suit qualified as a pre-election matter simply because INEC’s election timetable was attached to the originating summons.
Justice Umar held:
“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.”
Clerk struck out over pre-action notice
On the objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr Ogunlana, Justice Umar held that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before filing the suit.
The judge ruled that the failure rendered the action incompetent against the second defendant and consequently struck out the suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Court upholds Electoral Act provisions
On the substantive issues, Justice Umar rejected the NDC’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act was inconsistent with constitutional provisions on qualification and disqualification for elective offices.
According to the court, while the Constitution outlines the qualifications and disqualifications for elective positions, the Electoral Act only provides the procedure and timelines for resolving disputes arising from party primaries.
Justice Umar held that any aspirant or interested party seeking to challenge the qualification of a candidate who emerged from a party primary must do so during the pre-election stage.
“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 level,” the judge said.
He further ruled that Section 138, when read alongside other provisions of the Electoral Act, does not conflict 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,” Justice Umar held.
The court also declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act.
Justice Umar noted that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on the validity of the provision in an earlier judgment and stressed that lower courts were bound by judicial precedent.
According to the judge, the earlier appellate decision remained binding, making the NDC’s argument unsustainable.
Discover more from VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
