The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed a suit filed by the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC, seeking an order striking down Sections 138 and 77(5) of the new Electoral Act, 2026.
Delivering judgment, Justice Mohammed Umar, held that the suit by the NDC, lacked merit.
The NDC, in the suit, argued that the two sections, recently passed by the National Assembly and assented to by President Bola Tinubu, are inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The NDC, which was registered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Feb. 5, had filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2026.
The party, in the originating summons, sued the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) as 1st and 2nd defendants.
It also joined the Senate President and Chairman of the National Assembly, Sen. Godswill Akpabio, and INEC.
Vicent Ottaokpukpu, who filed the suit on March 27, on the party’s behalf, prayed the court to grant their reliefs.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Umar held that the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act complement, rather than conflict with, the 1999 Constitution.
The judge also upheld the preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit.
He held that the plaintiff was merely inviting 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.”
He said that the mere attachment of INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not transform the case into a pre-election matter.
“The fact that the defendant’s timetable is attached cannot make the case within the contemplation of Section 285″ he said.
The judge added that there was no deposition in the affidavit that raised the questions as to the election timetable.
On the objection raised by the clerk of the National Assembly, Justice Umar held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before commencing proceedings.
He ruled that the implication of non-service of a pre-action notice on the 2nd defendant “makes this suit incompetent against the 2nd defendant.”
He subsequently struck out the action against the clerk of the National Assembly.
On the substantive issue, the judge rejected the NDC’s argument that Section 138 of the Electoral Act was inconsistent with constitutional provisions governing qualification and disqualification for elective offices.
Justice Umar held that the constitution prescribes the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, while the Electoral Act merely provides the procedure and timeline for ventilating 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.
