“It may interest Nigerians to know that the 2026 Electoral Act has removed one of the most important sections of the Electoral Act 2022 that accords with the eligibility and qualification/disqualification sections of the 1999 constitution,” the plaintiff said.
A suit has been filed to challenge the provision of the Electoral Act that bars anyone from questioning the result of an election on grounds of the winner’s qualifications, including age and academic qualifications.
In the suit, yet to be assigned to a judge, the plaintiff sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the National Assembly and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as the defendants.
“It may interest Nigerians to know that the 2026 Electoral Act has removed one of the most important sections of the Electoral Act 2022 that accords with the eligibility and qualification/disqualification sections of the 1999 constitution.
“With the extant Act, nobody can question the constitutional qualifications of any person who contested an election in Nigeria,” Mr Nnamdi said in a press statement shared alongside the court filings with PREMIUM TIMES on Thursday.
The controversial provision disputed by the plaintiff is section 138 (1) of the Eelctotal Act 2026.
The plaintiff observed that the section is a reenactment expunging section 134 (1) (a) of the previous Electoral Act 2022, which provided that a person’s election victory might be questioned at the election petition tribunal if the person was “at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election.”
In place of the old provision, the disputed section 138(1) of the Eelctoral Act 2026 limitted the grounds on which an election may be questioned at the election tribunal to just:
“(a) election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non- compliance with the provisions of this Act; or
“(b) respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast atthe election.”
Mr Nnmadi argued that the controversial section 138(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 “contradicts the mandatory qualifications and disqualifications provisions of the 1999 Consttuton provided in sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 177, 182.”
Mr Nnmadi said, “The implication is that if a candidate presented by a political party is not constitutionally qualified to contest the election, and such an unqualified candidate is declared the winner by INEC, his election cannot be questioned at the Election Petition Tribunal by the candidate of another party who contested the same position with him and who is constitutionally qualified to contest the election.”
The suit urged the court to give judicial interpretation of sections 63 (1) & (2), 138 (1) & (2), 77 (4) and section 83(5) (6) of the Electoral Act 2026 in comparison to sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 177, and 182 of the Nigerian constitution.
Mr Nnamdi asked the court to review the Electoral Act 2026 and compare them to the Nigerian constitution.
The plaintiff, therefore, urged the court tto declare the unconstitutonal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
Giving reasons why he filed the suit against the parties, the plaintiff accused the National Assembly, under the leadership of the Senate President Godswill Akpabio and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, of criminally sabotaging the constitution to protect President Bola Tinubu’s disputed University qualification.
Academic qualification of President Bola Tinubu was a major ground in the petitions filed to challenge his victory in the 2023 presidential election.
In 2023, former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar and his Labour Party counterpart, Peter Obi, claimed Mr Tinubu forged his degree certificate he claimed to have obtained from Chicago State University (CSU) in 1979 and submitted to INEC for the 2023 presidential election.
They had also asked for the documents for possible use in Nigerian courts to support his claims to disqualify Mr Tinubu’s position as president pursuant to Section 134 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act 2022, which provides one of the grounds upon which an election may be questioned at the Tribunal.
This particular section ‘’A Person whose election is questioned at the time of the election is not qualified to contest the election,” was removed from the 2026 Electoral Act, one of the positions Mr Nnamdi is challenging in the suit he filed.
In October 2023, the CSU released Mr Tinubu’s result, which confirmed that he graduated from CSU in 1979, although observers say the released documents raised other questions.
In the suit, Mr Nnamdi accused the AGF, Lateef Fagbemi, of “deliberately abdicating from his constitutional responsibility to advise the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the various provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 that are inconsistent with the 1999 constitution before the President assented to the bill.”
He described their alleged actions as a criminal sabotage of the Nigerian democracy.
Similarly, he noted that section 63 (2) of the Electoral Act 2026 will embolden mischievous INEC officials to manipulate the electoral process and to “compromise the 2027 general election to benefit corrupt politicians.”
This section deals with the acceptance or rejection of a ballot paper. It gives discretion to an election official to count a ballot paper even though it bears no official stamp.
In the suit, Mr Nnamdi also questioned Section 77 (4) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The lawyer worries that this particular section of the Act violates the constitutional rights of Nigerians to freely join any political party without restriction and for political parties to welcome members anytime.
Mr Nnamdi also queries this section for mandating that political parties must hand over their official member list 21 days before any internal voting, and cannot add new members to the list until after voting is done.
Mr Nnamdi also questioned the authority of the National Assembly to ratify the section of the constitution without following due process.
He noted that the section is in conflict with section 40 of the 1999 constitution.
