NDC Suffers Setback as Court Upholds Electoral Act

By Opeyemi Adelakun

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, ruling that the disputed sections are consistent with the 1999 Constitution and validly regulate disputes over the qualification of candidates for elective offices.

Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Muhammed Umar held that the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, lacked merit, saying the provisions of the Electoral Act complement, rather than contradict, the Constitution.

The NDC had dragged the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the court, seeking declarations that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional.

The party also urged the court to declare that issues relating to the qualification of candidates could still be challenged after elections.

However, Justice Umar upheld preliminary objections against the suit, ruling that the plaintiff merely sought the court’s interpretation of 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 held.

The court also dismissed the argument that the case qualified as a pre-election matter simply because INEC’s 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,” Justice Umar said.

The judge further struck out the suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly after holding that the NDC failed to serve the mandatory pre-action notice before commencing proceedings.

According to the court, the omission rendered the suit incompetent against the second defendant.

On the substantive issues, Justice Umar ruled that the Constitution clearly sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, while the Electoral Act provides the procedure and timeline 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,” he said.

The judge held that Section 138 of the Electoral Act does not conflict with the Constitution but rather strengthens its provisions by providing a framework for resolving such disputes before elections.

“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 ruled.

The court also declined the NDC’s request to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, noting that the issue had already been settled by the Court of Appeal.

Justice Umar said the appellate court’s decision remains binding on lower courts under the doctrine of judicial precedent.

The ruling is regarded as a significant legal victory for the Electoral Act 2026, reaffirming that disputes over the qualification of candidates must be determined before elections rather than after the declaration of results.