The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Nigeria Democratic Congress challenging provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
Justice Mohammed Umar ruled on Tuesday, August 4, 2026, that the party’s case lacked merit and declined to invalidate Section 138 of the electoral law.
NDC Challenged Two Electoral Act Provisions
The NDC had asked the court to strike down Sections 138 and 77(5), arguing that the provisions conflicted with the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2026, was filed against the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The party’s lawyer, Vincent Ottaokpukpu, filed the originating summons on March 27, 2026. Earlier proceedings and the reliefs sought in the case were reported under the same suit number.
Court Rejects Pre-Election Objection
Justice Umar held that the case primarily required the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
The judge said attaching INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not automatically transform the lawsuit into a pre-election matter governed by Section 285 of the Constitution.
According to the court, the supporting affidavit did not contain facts directly connecting the NDC’s constitutional questions to the timetable.
Action Against National Assembly Clerk Struck Out
The court upheld a preliminary objection filed on behalf of the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Justice Umar ruled that the NDC failed to serve the required pre-action notice before commencing proceedings against the clerk.
The judge consequently held that the lawsuit was incompetent against the second defendant and struck out that part of the action.
Court Upholds Section 138
On the substantive dispute, Justice Umar rejected the NDC’s claim that Section 138 conflicted with constitutional provisions regulating qualifications and disqualifications for elective positions.
The party had argued that the section improperly removed candidate qualification as a ground on which an election victory could be challenged after the poll.
Justice Umar held that the Constitution establishes the qualifications and disqualifications for public office, while the Electoral Act sets out the procedures and deadlines for raising disputes.
He said a person seeking to challenge the eligibility of a candidate emerging from a party primary must generally raise the matter during the pre-election stage.
The judge concluded that Section 138 complemented the Constitution rather than contradicted it.
NDC Sought Restoration of Qualification Ground
The NDC had asked the court to direct the relevant authorities to amend the Electoral Act and restore qualification as an express ground for challenging the election of a president, governor or lawmaker.
It relied on several constitutional provisions dealing with eligibility for the Senate, House of Representatives, state assemblies, governorship and presidency.
The party maintained that removing qualification from the listed grounds for an election petition could prevent post-election challenges against candidates who allegedly failed to satisfy constitutional requirements.
Section 77(5) Governed by Appeal Court Decision
The NDC also challenged Section 77(5), which required eligible participants in party primaries to be included in a digital membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before the exercise.
Justice Umar did not separately nullify the provision, holding that the issue had already been determined by the Court of Appeal and that lower courts were bound by the appellate court’s precedent.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja had, on July 16, 2026, struck down Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) in a separate case filed by the Zenith Party.
The appellate court ruled that the provisions conflicted with constitutional sections granting political parties the authority to select and sponsor their candidates.
NDC Raised Freedom of Association Concerns
In its case, the NDC argued that Section 77(5) restricted citizens’ constitutional rights to join and participate in political parties.
The party said the Constitution did not specify how long a person must belong to a party before becoming eligible to contest its primary election.
It also argued that politicians who moved to another party following disputes over primary elections could be prevented from participating because their names might not appear in the earlier register submitted to INEC.
INEC Defended Electoral Act
INEC opposed the suit and maintained that the Electoral Act 2026 was properly enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by President Bola Tinubu.
The commission argued that Section 77 did not prevent citizens from forming, joining or participating in political parties.
INEC also said its election timetable provided political parties with the required period to conduct primaries and resolve disputes arising from the exercises.
The official Electoral Act 2026 replaced the Electoral Act 2022 and established the legal framework for federal, state and area council elections in Nigeria.
Other Defendants Opposed NDC’s Claims
The Attorney-General of the Federation argued that the disputed provisions supported rather than weakened the Constitution’s rules on candidate qualifications.
The Clerk of the National Assembly maintained that the legislation was validly passed, assented to and gazetted.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio also opposed the case, describing the NDC’s claims as misconceived.
Justice Umar ultimately dismissed the party’s substantive challenge and upheld Section 138 while recognising the binding Court of Appeal ruling already made on Section 77(5).
