The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.
Gatekeepers News reports that delivering judgment on Tuesday in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the action lacked merit, ruling that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act complement, rather than conflict with, the 1999 Constitution.
The NDC had sued the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seeking declarations that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 are unconstitutional.
The party also asked the court to declare that issues relating to the qualification of candidates could still be challenged after elections.
Justice Umar, however, upheld preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit, noting that the plaintiff was merely asking the court to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions.
“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 judge said.
The court further held that attaching INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not make the matter a pre-election case.
“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,” the judge ruled.
On the objection filed by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Justice Umar held that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before instituting the suit.
He ruled that the failure to serve the notice rendered the action incompetent against the second defendant and consequently struck out the suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Addressing the substantive issues, the judge rejected the party’s claim that Section 138 of the Electoral Act conflicts with constitutional provisions on the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.
According to the court, while the Constitution sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for public office, the Electoral Act merely establishes the procedures and timelines for resolving disputes arising from party primaries.
“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,” Justice Umar held.
He further ruled that Section 138, when read alongside other provisions of the Electoral Act, is consistent 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,” he said.
The court also declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, holding that the issue had already been settled by the Court of Appeal.
Justice Umar noted that the appellate court had previously interpreted the provision, stressing that lower courts are bound by judicial precedent.
According to the judge, the implication is that “courts, generally, are binded by precedent.”
