The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday 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.
In his judgment, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, lacked merit, ruling that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act complemented rather than conflicted with the 1999 Constitution.
NEWSNGR understands that the NDC had instituted the action against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The party had asked the court to declare, among other things, that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional.
The plaintiff also urged the court to rule that issues concerning the qualification or disqualification of candidates could still be raised after an election.
However, Justice Umar upheld preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit.
The judge held that the NDC was essentially asking the court to interpret the provisions of the Electoral Act alongside those of the 1999 Constitution.
Justice Umar said, “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 also rejected the argument that the case was a pre-election matter simply because the INEC election timetable was attached to the originating summons.
“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 court held.
On the preliminary 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 filing the case.
The judge ruled that the failure to serve the required notice rendered the suit incompetent against the Clerk.
He consequently struck out the case against the second defendant.
The judge said the non-service of the pre-action notice “makes this suit incompetent against the second defendant.”
On the substantive issues raised in the case, Justice Umar rejected the NDC’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act was inconsistent with constitutional provisions on the qualification and disqualification of candidates seeking elective offices.
The judge held that while the Constitution sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act provides the procedure and timeline for challenging issues arising from political party primaries.
He said candidates could not wait until after an election to challenge the qualification of a person who emerged from a party primary.
“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 said.
The judge further held that Section 138 of the Electoral Act, when read alongside other relevant provisions of the law, did 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,” he ruled.
Justice Umar also declined to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, holding that the issue had previously been considered and determined by the Court of Appeal.
According to the judge, the earlier decision of the appellate court remained binding on the Federal High Court.
He stressed the importance of judicial precedent, stating that “courts, generally, are bound by precedent.”
The ruling effectively upheld the challenged provisions of the Electoral Act and reinforced the position that disputes over the qualification or disqualification of candidates arising from party primaries should be pursued within the stipulated pre-election period.
