The Federal High Court in Abuja has dealt a major setback to the National Democratic Congress (NDC), dismissing its suit challenging critical provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and affirming the legal framework governing the qualification and disqualification of candidates seeking elective offices.

In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice Muhammed Umar ruled that the suit lacked merit and upheld objections raised against the action, effectively shutting down the opposition party’s attempt to invalidate Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act.

The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, was instituted by the NDC against the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

At the heart of the dispute was the NDC’s argument that certain provisions of the Electoral Act were inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. The party sought declarations that Sections 138 and 77(5) were unconstitutional and urged the court to allow questions relating to the qualification of candidates to be raised even after elections had been conducted.

However, Justice Umar disagreed, holding that the plaintiff was merely asking the court to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions rather than presenting a valid legal basis for the reliefs sought.

“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 stated.

The court also dismissed the argument that the matter qualified as a pre-election case simply because INEC’s election timetable was attached to the originating summons.

According to the judge, the inclusion of the timetable did not automatically bring the suit within the scope of constitutional provisions governing pre-election disputes.

“The fact that the defendant’s timetable is attached cannot make the case within the contemplation of Section 285,” Justice Umar ruled, noting that no evidence had been presented challenging the timetable itself.

In another blow to the NDC, the court struck out the suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly after finding that the party failed to comply with the legal requirement of issuing a pre-action notice before commencing proceedings.

Justice Umar held that the failure to serve the notice rendered the case incompetent against the second defendant.

Advertisement

On the substantive issues, the court firmly rejected the NDC’s claim that Section 138 of the Electoral Act conflicts with constitutional provisions on qualification and disqualification for public office.

The judge explained that while the Constitution sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for elective positions, the Electoral Act only provides procedures and timelines for resolving disputes arising from party primaries.

He stressed that anyone seeking to challenge the eligibility of a candidate who emerged from a political party’s primary election must do so before the election takes place.

“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 held.

Justice Umar further ruled that Section 138 complements the Constitution rather than contradicting it.

“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,” the judge declared.

The court also refused to invalidate Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, pointing out that the Court of Appeal had already settled the issue in an earlier judgment.

According to Justice Umar, lower courts are bound by established judicial precedents and cannot depart from decisions already reached by higher courts.

The ruling is expected to reinforce the legal position that disputes over candidate eligibility must be pursued within the timelines prescribed by electoral laws, a decision that could have significant implications for political parties and aspirants ahead of future elections.