The Senate has passed an amendment to the Electoral Act, 2026, aimed at clarifying jurisdiction in pre-election matters and ending conflicting court rulings arising from candidate nomination disputes.
Gatekeepers News reports that the bill, sponsored by Simon Lalong, chairman of the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters, passed second and third readings on Thursday.
The proposed legislation seeks to curb the practice of “forum shopping,” where litigants file similar cases in multiple courts across different jurisdictions in search of favourable judgments.
According to lawmakers, the amendment designates specific courts to handle pre-election disputes in order to prevent contradictory rulings from courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
The bill is also expected to streamline the resolution of disputes arising from party primaries and ensure that issues surrounding the legal status of candidates are settled before general elections.
Senators said the amendment would strengthen timelines for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to finalise candidate lists and improve stability in election planning.
The legislation marks the first major amendment to the Electoral Act, 2026, signed into law by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on February 18.
While the 2026 Electoral Act focused largely on integrating the bimodal voter accreditation system (BVAS) and electronic transmission of results into law, lawmakers argued that unresolved ambiguities surrounding pre-election litigation required urgent attention.
Leading debate on the bill, Lalong said democracy depends not only on the conduct of elections but also on the credibility and predictability of the legal processes preceding them.
“Democracy thrives not merely on the conduct of elections, but also on the credibility, certainty, and predictability of the legal process that precedes the post-election,” he said.
“The discrepancy of candidates and the integrity of party primaries are foundational pillars of representative democracy.”
He warned that uncertainty in the legal framework governing pre-election disputes exposes the electoral system to confusion, contradictory judgments, and delays.
“Where the legal framework regulating the pre-election dispute is uncertain or conflicting, the entire electoral architecture becomes vulnerable to confusion, forum shopping, contradictory judgments, and unnecessary delays,” Lalong added.
The senator explained that the bill proposes amendments to Section 29 of the Electoral Act and introduces a new Section 29A to clearly define jurisdictional competence in pre-election matters.
According to him, the amendment to Section 29(5) would permit aspirants to institute legal action either in the Federal Capital Territory or in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose.
“This amendment is both practical and equitable,” he said.
“It reduces hardship on litigants, improves access to justice and aligns electoral adjudication with territorial realities surrounding political primaries and nomination processes.”
Lalong further explained that the proposed Section 29A would establish that pre-election matters concerning national assembly, governorship, and state assembly elections would originate at the Federal High Court, with appeals proceeding to the Court of Appeal.
He added that disputes relating to presidential and vice-presidential elections would originate at the Court of Appeal, with appeals going directly to the Supreme Court.
“Mr. President, this proposal is not arbitrary,” he said.
“It is rooted firmly in constitutional logic, judicial efficiency, and the drafting of hierarchy of courts.”
The senator also said the amendment would eliminate the “dangerous practice” of litigants filing multiple suits in different judicial divisions in search of favourable orders.
“Such practices erode public confidence in the judiciary and undermine electoral stability,” he stated.
“By expressly providing that no court shall entertain pre-election matters except in accordance with the proposed section 29A, this amendment introduces certainty and procedural discipline into electoral adjudication.”
Several senators backed the proposal during debate.
Mohammed Monguno described the amendment as necessary to address abuse of judicial processes in election matters.
“This amendment is apt and germane. This bill seeks to nip in the bud the ugly scenario of forum shopping whereby litigants file election matters at their will in different jurisdictions in order to seek for favourable orders in their favour,” Monguno said.
Ekong Sampson said the bill addresses important concerns about the sanctity of elections and the judiciary’s role in sustaining democracy.
“So much has been said about the dangers of forum shopping, where litigants explore a space that favours them, to find suits that will favour them. This is dangerous to democracy. This is dangerous to our political space,” he said.
Adams Oshiomhole also supported the amendment, saying it would help reduce prolonged litigation over candidate nominations.
“I’d like to lend my support to this proposed amendment. I’m very clear it does not in any way violate the constitution of Nigeria and these objectives are also very clear and unambiguous,” Oshiomhole stated.
