From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Federal High Court in Abuja has reaffirmed the legal principle that disputes over the eligibility of candidates seeking elective office must be resolved before elections, dismissing a constitutional challenge brought by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) against key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
In a judgement delivered on Tuesday, Justice Muhammed Umar ruled that the party failed to establish that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act were inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, holding instead that the provisions serve as procedural safeguards for enforcing constitutional requirements governing candidates’ qualification.
The suit, filed as FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, named the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate President and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
The NDC had urged the court to strike down the disputed provisions, contending that they unlawfully limited the period within which questions concerning the qualification and disqualification of candidates could be ventilated before the courts. The party maintained that such issues should remain open to judicial scrutiny even after elections have been concluded.
The judge held that the Constitution defines the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, while the Electoral Act merely prescribes the procedure and timeframe within which those constitutional provisions may be enforced through the courts.
According to him, the legislation neither amends nor diminishes constitutional rights but provides an orderly process for resolving disputes arising from party primaries before elections are conducted.
The court consequently held that any person seeking to challenge the eligibility of a candidate nominated by a political party must do so during the pre-election period.
Justice Umar further held that Section 138 of the Electoral Act cannot be interpreted in isolation, noting that when read together with the broader provisions of the Act, it complements the Constitution rather than contradicts it.
He, therefore, dismissed the NDC’s argument that the provision was unconstitutional.
The court also rejected the party’s attempt to nullify Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, pointing out that the Court of Appeal had previously pronounced on the issue. Justice Umar said the doctrine of stare decisis requires lower courts to faithfully apply decisions of superior courts, leaving no room for a contrary interpretation.
Earlier in the proceedings, the court upheld a preliminary objection raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly after finding that the plaintiff failed to serve the statutory pre-action notice required before instituting proceedings against the office. The failure, the judge ruled, rendered the action incompetent against the second defendant.
Justice Umar equally dismissed the argument that the inclusion of INEC’s election timetable converted the matter into a pre-election suit, holding that the originating processes disclosed no facts challenging the timetable or its implementation.
